Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 838 - ITAT DELHITP adjustment - comparable selection - TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) selected - HELD THAT:- Mitco has incurred expenses on providing vocational training and IT training, which changes its profile, thus is not a suitable comparable vis-à-vis the taxpayer, hence ordered to be excluded. IBI Chematur inter alia fails 75% service revenue filter applied by the taxpayer and also accepted by the TPO; that it has various segments but no segmental financials are available; that IBI Chematur is not merely providing engineering services as its only business is of high end engineering services with the use of specific technologies and huge research and development expenditure along with R&D centre. As relying on BECHTEL INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE 4 (2) , NEW DELHI. [2015 (12) TMI 1560 - ITAT DELHI] this company is to be excluded on ground of non-availability of financial segmental and substantial expenditure on R&D activities Mahindra Consulting Engineers Limited - As following the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in BG Exploration and Production India Ltd. [2017 (4) TMI 1145 - ITAT DELHI] we are of the considered view that the TPO has rightly retained the Mahindra as a comparable after examining the contentions raised by the assessee. However, we are of the considered view that in view of the settled principle of law, the assessee is entitled for benefit of working capital adjustment in order to benchmark its international transaction. Disallowance of misc. expenses like Diwali gifts and presents given - HELD THAT:- When undisputedly taxpayer has incurred these expenses allegedly on gifts and presents by way of cash, the same cannot be attributed to Diwali gifts and presents etc. which is also against the provisions contained u/s 40A(3). So, we hereby confirm the addition made by the AO and consequently, corporate grounds are decided against the taxpayer.
|