Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

Functionally Dissimilar BPO Comparables Excluded; Section 10A Relief Upheld: ITAT Delhi

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 12444
Case Name
ACIT Vs WNS Business Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2011-12
Subscribe to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Advertisement

ACIT Vs WNS Business Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

Summary: The Revenue filed an appeal against the order dated 29.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee, WNS Business Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., was engaged in export of information technology enabled Business Process Services (“BPO”), including IT Enable Delivery Solutions, back-office data operations and data processing for customers in the financial services industry in the USA, with significant focus on mortgage banking solutions. It had e-filed its return on 30.11.2011 declaring total income of INR 2,73,88,841/-. As the assessee had international transactions with its associated enterprise, the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer, who by order dated 15.01.2015 under section 92CA(3) proposed an arm’s length price adjustment of INR 87,72,151/- in the ITES segment. The Assessing Officer also proposed disallowance of INR 1,06,80,887/- out of the export deduction claimed under section 10A. As no objections were filed before the DRP, the final assessment was made at INR 4,68,41,880/-. The CIT(A), following orders in the assessee’s own case for preceding assessment years, deleted both additions.

On Ground No.1, concerning deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 87,72,151/-, the Revenue challenged inclusion and exclusion of various comparables used for benchmarking the assessee’s ITeS BPO services and delivery solutions. Informed Technologies India Ltd., originally selected by the assessee but rejected by the TPO, was directed to be included by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the company had similarly been included in preceding years and the Revenue had not controverted the relevant factual position. Applying the principle of consistency, it confirmed the inclusion.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 22,371

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.