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

ITAT Directs Fresh TP Analysis as TPO Mechanically Rejected Segmental Results

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 7560
Case Name
Curia India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2018-19
Advertisement

Curia India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

The appeal before the ITAT Hyderabad arose from the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Curia Group engaged in providing contract research and development (R&D) services and contract manufacturing services to its associated enterprises (AEs), challenged multiple transfer pricing (TP) adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and upheld substantially by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The adjustments related to contract R&D services, contract manufacturing services, interest on external commercial borrowings (ECBs), reimbursement of expenses, interest on outstanding receivables, and the non-adjustment of brought-forward business losses.

The Assessing Officer referred the international transactions to the TPO, who proposed TP adjustments aggregating to over Rs. 8.15 crore. After partial relief by the DRP on reimbursement of expenses, the final TP adjustment stood reduced to Rs. 8.10 crore, and the assessment was completed determining taxable income at Rs. 7.49 crore. The assessee appealed before the Tribunal.

The principal issue concerned the rejection of the certified segmental financial information submitted by the assessee. The assessee contended that its segmental financials, certified by a Cost and Management Accountant, provided a more accurate allocation of costs by directly identifying expenses attributable to each business segment and allocating common costs using appropriate allocation keys such as Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) hours, machine hours, and turnover where necessary. The TPO rejected these segmental results solely because they did not match the audited segmental disclosures prepared under Accounting Standard-17 and instead allocated costs on a revenue basis, resulting in identical profitability across segments.

Paid content

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

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 20,835

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