J&K&L HC: Failure to Frame Limitation Issue Not Fatal; Courts May Examine Limitation Suo Motu  ||  Bombay HC: Preventing Feeding Stray Dogs at Society or Bus Stop is Not 'Wrongful Restraint'  ||  Gujarat HC: Not All Injuries Reduce Earning Capacity; Functional Disability Must Be Assessed  ||  Delhi HC: Framing of Charges is Interlocutory and Not Appealable under Section 21 of NIA Act  ||  Supreme Court: Mutation of Revenue Records Can Be Based on a Will  ||  Supreme Court: Informant’s Criminal Revision Does Not Abate on Death; Other Victims May Continue  ||  Supreme Court: Driving Licence Renewal After a Gap Will Not Take Effect From Expiry Date  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Quash Cheque Bounce Cases by Pre-Trial Inquiry Into Liability  ||  Supreme Court: Passport Renewal Cannot be Denied if Trial Court Has Permitted it Despite Pending Case  ||  SC: Delay in Depositing Sale Balance Does not Make Specific Performance Decree Inexecutable    

Encora Innovation India Private Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (09 Aug 2021)

When assessee is a capital service provider, there is no necessity to provide negative working capital adjustment

MANU/IL/0241/2021

Direct Taxation

Two issues raised in present case is namely-- (i) Assessee's prayer regarding inclusion of Crystal Voxx Limited in the final list of comparable companies with respect of ITES segment. (ii) Assessee's submission that, negative working capital adjustment should not be allowed.

On identical facts, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in FNF India Private Limited v. ACIT had held that Crystal Voxx Limited should be included in the final list of comparable companies. The list of comparable companies selected by the TPO in this case and the assessment year are identical to the case of FNF India Private Limited. In view of the above order of the Co-ordinate Bench of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of FNF India Limited, AO/TPO are directed to include Crystal Voxx Limited as a comparable Company.

Admittedly in this case, the assessee is a capital service provider entirely funded by its AEs. In the following case laws, it has been held that when assessee is a capital service provider, there is no necessity to provide negative working capital adjustment.

In view of the judicial pronouncements, it is held that since the assessee is a capital service provider, negative working capital adjustment need not be given in the facts of this case. The appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   LIST   COMPARABLE COMPANIES  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved