119 (Mum) (ii) M/s.Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT

152 TTJ 215Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#7258 most cited

What is 119 (Mum) (ii) M/s.Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Companies with a turnover between Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 200 crores cannot be compared with companies having a turnover above Rs. 200 crores when applying a turnover filter. This principle establishes a distinction in comparability based on turnover ranges.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Genisys Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd v DCIT · 152 TTJ 215 · 119 (Mum) (ii) · turnover filter · comparability · transfer pricing · range of turnover · Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 200 crores · above Rs. 200 crores

Also reported as

26 Taxmann.com 124

Judgments citing 119 (Mum) (ii) M/s.Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.291/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 144CSection 92C

…ncluding that of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India (P) Ltd vs DCIT (held as obiter dicta) and the other decisions mentioned supra has held that the law laid down in Genisys Integrating System (India) Pvt Ltd. V. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010 dt.05.08.2011 [152 TTJ 215/53 SOT 159] is the correct law on the application of turnover filter. In the case of Genisys the Tribunal has held that companies having turnover in the range of Rs.1crore to Rs.200 crores cannot be compared with companies having turnover above Rs.200 crores. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the case of Fulcrum is extracted as hereund…

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 285/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 92C

…ncluding that of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India (P) Ltd vs DCIT (held as obiter dicta) and the other decisions mentioned supra has held that the law laid down in Genisys Integrating System (India) Pvt Ltd. V. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010 dt.05.08.2011 [152 TTJ 215/53 SOT 159] is the correct law on the application of turnover filter. In the case of Genisys the Tribunal has held that companies having turnover in the range of Rs.1crore to Rs.200 crores cannot be compared with companies having turnover above Rs.200 crores. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the case of Fulcrum is extracted as hereund…

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 703/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

…ng wide range of decisions on this issue including that of Chryscapital (held as obiter dicta) and the other decisions mentioned supra has held that the law laid down in Genisys Integrating System (India) Pvt Ltd. V. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010 dt.05.08.2011 [152 TTJ 215/53 SOT 159] is the correct law on the application of turnover filter. In the case of Genisys the Tribunal has held that companies having turnover in the range of Rs.1crore to Rs.200 crores cannot be compared with companies having turnover above Rs.200 crores. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the case of Fulcrum is extracted as hereund…

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited (Earlier Known As Ge Medical Systems India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 344/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

…ng wide range of decisions on this issue including that of Chryscapital (held as obiter dicta) and the other decisions mentioned supra has held that the law laid down in Genisys Integrating System (India) Pvt Ltd. V. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010 dt.05.08.2011 [152 TTJ 215/53 SOT 159] is the correct law on the application of turnover filter. In the case of Genisys the Tribunal has held that companies having turnover in the range of Rs.1crore to Rs.200 crores cannot be compared with companies having turnover above Rs.200 crores. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the case of Fulcrum is extracted as hereund…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 799/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…crores made by the TPO. This is duly supported by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in the following cases:- (i) Phoenix Mecano (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 17 taxmann.com 119 (Mum) (ii) M/s.Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 152 TTJ 215 (Bangalore) (iii) Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd. (2012) 26 taxmann.com 124 (Mum.) I T A No s . (iv) Lionbridge Technologies Pvt.Ltd. (2012) 137 ITD 197 (Mum.) 28.4. There is no fault can be found from the order of the ld.CIT(A) so far as restricting the addition on account of differential operating margin to the international transactions is co…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nabros Pharma Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 788/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…crores made by the TPO. This is duly supported by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in the following cases:- (i) Phoenix Mecano (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 17 taxmann.com 119 (Mum) (ii) M/s.Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 152 TTJ 215 (Bangalore) (iii) Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd. (2012) 26 taxmann.com 124 (Mum.) I T A No s . (iv) Lionbridge Technologies Pvt.Ltd. (2012) 137 ITD 197 (Mum.) 28.4. There is no fault can be found from the order of the ld.CIT(A) so far as restricting the addition on account of differential operating margin to the international transactions is co…

The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Vadodara

ITA 551/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…crores made by the TPO. This is duly supported by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in the following cases:- (i) Phoenix Mecano (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 17 taxmann.com 119 (Mum) (ii) M/s.Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 152 TTJ 215 (Bangalore) (iii) Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd. (2012) 26 taxmann.com 124 (Mum.) I T A No s . (iv) Lionbridge Technologies Pvt.Ltd. (2012) 137 ITD 197 (Mum.) 28.4. There is no fault can be found from the order of the ld.CIT(A) so far as restricting the addition on account of differential operating margin to the international transactions is co…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(2), (Tpo), Baroda

ITA 2061/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…crores made by the TPO. This is duly supported by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in the following cases:- (i) Phoenix Mecano (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 17 taxmann.com 119 (Mum) (ii) M/s.Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 152 TTJ 215 (Bangalore) (iii) Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd. (2012) 26 taxmann.com 124 (Mum.) I T A No s . (iv) Lionbridge Technologies Pvt.Ltd. (2012) 137 ITD 197 (Mum.) 28.4. There is no fault can be found from the order of the ld.CIT(A) so far as restricting the addition on account of differential operating margin to the international transactions is co…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 1197/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…crores made by the TPO. This is duly supported by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in the following cases:- (i) Phoenix Mecano (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 17 taxmann.com 119 (Mum) (ii) M/s.Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 152 TTJ 215 (Bangalore) (iii) Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd. (2012) 26 taxmann.com 124 (Mum.) I T A No s . (iv) Lionbridge Technologies Pvt.Ltd. (2012) 137 ITD 197 (Mum.) 28.4. There is no fault can be found from the order of the ld.CIT(A) so far as restricting the addition on account of differential operating margin to the international transactions is co…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The CIT-I, Baroda

ITA 1453/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…crores made by the TPO. This is duly supported by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in the following cases:- (i) Phoenix Mecano (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 17 taxmann.com 119 (Mum) (ii) M/s.Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 152 TTJ 215 (Bangalore) (iii) Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd. (2012) 26 taxmann.com 124 (Mum.) I T A No s . (iv) Lionbridge Technologies Pvt.Ltd. (2012) 137 ITD 197 (Mum.) 28.4. There is no fault can be found from the order of the ld.CIT(A) so far as restricting the addition on account of differential operating margin to the international transactions is co…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tyco Electronics Systems India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2005-06

ITA 311/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Prasad & UmashankarFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1327/Bang/2010 (Assessment year: 2006-07) and IT(TP)A Nos.231/Bang/2012 (Assessment year: 2005-06) M/s. TE Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd., (In the matter of erstwhile M/s.Tyco Electronics Systems India Pvt. Ltd., amalgamated with TE Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd., TE Park, 22B, Doddenakundi, 2nd Phase Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru-560 048. PAN:AABCT 3357 R … Appellant Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 12(4), Bengaluru. … Respo…

Tyco Electronics Systems India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2005-06

ITA 231/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Prasad & UmashankarFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1327/Bang/2010 (Assessment year: 2006-07) and IT(TP)A Nos.231/Bang/2012 (Assessment year: 2005-06) M/s. TE Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd., (In the matter of erstwhile M/s.Tyco Electronics Systems India Pvt. Ltd., amalgamated with TE Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd., TE Park, 22B, Doddenakundi, 2nd Phase Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru-560 048. PAN:AABCT 3357 R … Appellant Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 12(4), Bengaluru. … Respo…

M/S. Tyco Electronics Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2005-06

ITA 1327/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Prasad & UmashankarFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1327/Bang/2010 (Assessment year: 2006-07) and IT(TP)A Nos.231/Bang/2012 (Assessment year: 2005-06) M/s. TE Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd., (In the matter of erstwhile M/s.Tyco Electronics Systems India Pvt. Ltd., amalgamated with TE Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd., TE Park, 22B, Doddenakundi, 2nd Phase Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru-560 048. PAN:AABCT 3357 R … Appellant Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 12(4), Bengaluru. … Respo…

Multitech Software Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 73/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.73/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) M/S. Multitech Software Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 12(1), Bangalore. No.170, 8Th Cross, 10Th Main, Indiranagar, 2Nd Stage, Bangalore-560 038 Pan Aaacm 9615Q Appellant Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I (D.R)
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…s only. It was contended that these companies with turnover in excess of Rs.200 Crores ought to be excluded from the list of comparables as held by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 152 TTJ 215. 23.2 While dealing with Revenue’s appeal we have already adjudicated on this issue at para 14.1 to 14.3 of this order and the same holds good in respect of the assessee's submissions. 24. RPT Filter – Four Soft Ltd. 24.1 Before us, the assessee made detailed submissions to the effect that M/s. Four Soft Ltd., the comparable company chosen by the…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Misys Software (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2005-06 and the C

ITA 1110/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T(T.P.) A. No.1110/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(1), Bangalore-560 001 …. Appellant. Vs. M/S. Misys Software (I) Pvt. Ltd., Eagle Ridge, Embassy Golf Links Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore-560 071. ….. Respondent. Pan Aaack 9067G C.O. No.20/Bang/2012 (In I.T(T.P.) A. No.1110/Bang/2011) (By Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…s only. It was contended that these companies with turnover in excess of Rs.200 Crores ought to be excluded from the list of comparables as held by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 152 TTJ 215. According to the learned Authorised Representative, the following companies fail the turnover filter of Rs.200 Crores :- Sl.No. Name of the company Turnover in Crores (Rs.) 1. IGate Global Solutions Ltd. (Seg) 406.00 2. Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. 457.45 3. L&T Infotech Ltd. 562.45 4. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. 3,464.20 5. Infosys Tech…

119 (Mum) (ii) M/s.Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT (152 TTJ 215) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax