BRAINBEES SOLUTIONS LIMITED,PUNE, MAHARASHTRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

ITTPA 1431/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 September 2026AY 2022-202395 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Brainbees Solutions Limited, engaged in wholesale trading of baby and kids' products and FMCG goods under the brand 'FirstCry.com', filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23 declaring Nil income. The return was processed, determining total income at Rs.30,45,31,560/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Due to international transactions with Associate Enterprises (AEs), the Assessing Officer referred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO examined several international transactions, including sale of trading goods, provision of IT support and digital marketing support services, receipt of royalty, and subscription to share capital. The TPO proposed adjustments to the arm's length price (ALP) of these transactions. The assessee is in appeal against the order passed by the ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune, under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What did the Tribunal hold?

On the issue of including Microland Limited as a comparable for IT support services, the Tribunal held that both the assessee and Microland fall under the same category. The Tribunal found no error in the conclusion drawn by the lower authorities and rejected the assessee's contention for exclusion. The Tribunal reasoned that merely dividing one set (ITeS) into two sub-sets does not make the company non-ITeS, and the assessee also has two ITeS verticals. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that Microland is not a comparable company was rejected, and the TPO was directed to include it. Regarding MAA Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that its financial statements lacked details on functionality or services. However, its website indicated engagement in data cleansing, web research, and CRM. Given these circumstances, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if the company satisfies the filters applied by him and then include it in the comparables. For Games2Win India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted its engagement in online entertainment and gaming, with significant advertising revenue and some game licensing. The Tribunal's decision on this specific comparable is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the arguments suggest a debate over its comparability for IT support services.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in directing the TPO to include Microland Limited as a comparable for the international transaction pertaining to the provision of IT support services, when the assessee contended it was not a comparable. - Assessee's contention: Microland Limited should be excluded as it is not a comparable. - Revenue's contention: Relied on the orders of the AO/TPO/DRP. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in restoring the issue of including MAA Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable for the provision of IT support services to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification, when the assessee contended it satisfied the filters. - Assessee's contention: MAA Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. satisfies all filters and should be included. - Revenue's contention: Relied on the orders of the AO/TPO/DRP. 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in excluding Games2Win India Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable for the provision of IT support services, when the assessee contended it was engaged in software development and earned significant advertising revenue. - Assessee's contention: Games2Win India Pvt. Ltd. should be excluded due to its business activities and revenue streams. - Revenue's contention: Relied on the orders of the AO/TPO/DRP.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 92CA(1),Section 92CA(2),Section 92D(3),Section 10B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ankit Gattani
For Respondent: Smt. Sudha Gupta, CIT-DR

PER R. K. PANDA, VP :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.01.2026 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune relating to assessment year 2022-23. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of buying, selling, advertising, promoting baby and kids’ products and FMCG goods on a wholesale basis through various channels like franchises and retailers and the brand ‘FirstCry.com’. It offers baby and kids clothing, foot wear, toys, books and CDs, school supplies, b

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,299 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →