Steria (India) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-8, New Delhi
[Citation -2019-LL-0830-29]
| Citation | 2019-LL-0830-29 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Steria (India) Ltd. |
| Respondent Name | Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-8, New Delhi |
| Court | ITAT-Delhi |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 30/08/2019 |
| Assessment Year | 2015-16 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | transfer pricing adjustment • international transaction • disallowance of payment • outstanding demand • deduction of tax • application for stay • arm length price • charging of interest |
| Bot Summary: | The learned AR for the applicant pointed out that the addition which is made in the hands of the applicant is on account of the following disallowances :- 2 Stay-874/Del/2019 Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.54,78,28,036 on account of difference in the arm s length price of the international transaction of provision of software development services and IT enable services; Disallowance of management services fees paid to Groupe Steria SCA amounting to Rs.10,17,89,369 under section 40(a)(i) of the Act; and Disallowance of payment made to Steria France amounting to Rs.9,28,28,017 in respect of recharge of IT cost under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. In respect of item No.(iii), the learned AR for the applicant pointed out that the applicant had acquired copywrited articles and there was no requirement for deduction of tax at source. The learned AR for the applicant stressed that in case the plea of the applicant is allowed, then no upward adjustment needs to be made in the hands of the applicant. Learned DR for the Revenue strongly opposed the stay application moved by the applicant and pointed out that the adjustment in software development segment and ITES segment is to 3 Stay-874/Del/2019 be upheld following the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in assessment year 2010-11. The two disallowances made on account of management services fee and payment made in respect of recharge of IT cost is claimed to be covered in favour of the applicant. We find merit in the plea of the applicant and hold that there is a prima-facie case in favour of the applicant for stay of the outstanding demand. During the course of hearing, it was put to the learned AR for the applicant and he fairly admitted to deposit the sum of 5 crores against the said outstanding demand. |