GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

M/s Fiserv India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. ACIT, New Delhi

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Delhi

Brief :
With this appeal, the assessee has challenged the correctness of the assessment order dated 26.12.2016 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short]

Citation :
ITA No. 5659/Del/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH,
NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]
BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND
 SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
 ITA No. 333/DEL/2017
[Assessment Year: 2012-13]
M/s Fiserv India Pvt Ltd Vs The A.C.I.T
Regus Elegance, Level - 2 Circle - 9(1)
Elegance Jasola Distt Centre New Delhi.
Old Mathura Road, New Delhi.
PAN : AACCR 0787 L
 [Appellant] [Respondent]

Date of Hearing : 22.09.2020
 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020

 Assessee by : Shri Sachit Jolly. Adv
 Revenue by : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR

ORDER

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

With this appeal, the assessee has challenged the correctness of the assessment order dated 26.12.2016 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short]. 

2. The grievances of the assessee can be summarised as under:

a) Transfer pricing addition of Rs.20.29 crores in respect of international transaction of software development services rendered by the assessee to its parent company;

b) Addition of Rs. 2,98,46,447/- by treating forex loss as speculative loss;

c) Addition of Rs.16,07,391/- by disallowing deduction for donation.

3. In addition to the above, the assessee is also aggrieved by the treatment of forex exchange gain as non-operating income.

4. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and with the assistance of the ld. Counsel, we have considered the documentary evidences brought on record in the form of Paper Book in light of Rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules and have also perused the judicial decisions relied upon by both the sides. 

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant was incorporated on May 31st, 2002 in India and is a closely held company with 498,051 shares being held by Fiserve Worldwide Solutions Inc. USA and balance 1% share held by ARTIUS Inc. USA. The appellant operates from three Software Technology Park Scheme Units located at Noida, Bangalore and Pune.

6. The appellant provides software development and maintenance services and ITES/BPO services to its Associated Enterprises [AE]. Based on the terms of service agreement with the AEs, the appellant is compensated on cost plus 15%. 

To read the full judgement, find the enclosed file

 

Guest
on 29 September 2020
Published in Income Tax
Views : 7
downloaded 3 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags