Actis Advisers P. Ltd. v. DCIT

20 ITR (Trib) 138Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#17210 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing Actis Advisers P. Ltd. v. DCIT

DOOWON AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KNACHEEPURAM vs. ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE RANGE 1, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3061/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3061/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Doowon Automotive Systems The Assistant Commissioner Of India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. B-19 & 20, Vs. Income Tax (Osd), Sipcot Industrial Park, Oragadam, Corporate Range – 1, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai. Kancheepuram District 602 105. [Pan:Aaccd4172F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri B. Jayaragahvan, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 92Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], Dated 13.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Besides Challenging Transfer Pricing Issues Of Custom Duty, Working Capital Adjustment, Foreign Exchange Loss, Provision For Doubtful Debts, Confirming Hanon Climate Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Is A Comparable Company, The Assessee Has Also Challenged Corporate Tax Issue Of Brought Forward Business Losses From The Previous Years.

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

…es of the Tribunal including Aglient Technologies International P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2013) 36 CCH 187 Del Trib; Stream International Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ADIT 18 I.T.A. No.3061/Chny/17 (IT)(2013) 152 TTJ(Mumbai) 553; and Actis Advisers Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2012) 20 ITR (Trib) 138(Delhi). In view of the above judicial precedents, we are of the considered opinion that the TPO was not justified for including an incomparable company namely, Hanon Climate Systems India Pvt. Ltd., who’s RPTs exceed 25%. Accordingly, we direct the TPO/AO to exclude the comparable M/s. Hanon Climate Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the ground…

ATHENA SEMI CONDUCTORS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT,

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

ITA 1630/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, Bengaluru

…e the CIT (Appeals) has not adjudicated this issue conclusively but remanded the same to the record of the TPO / A.O. for reconsideration and adjudication in the light of the decision of the Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Actis Advisers P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 20 ITR (Trib) 138. It is 13 IT(TP)A No.1630/Bang/2013 pertinent to note that the findings reproduced by the CIT (Appeals) is only a broad guideline but not the factual finding on the comparability of each and every company selected by the TPO. Thus we find that the CIT (Appeals) has not adjudicated the issue of functional comparability of each and every com…

ITO vs. M/S CDC SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

ITA 1645/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G. S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Meera Srivastava, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 92C

…challenge the direction of the learned CIT(A) remanding the matter AO/TPO to exclude functionally dissimilar companies following guidelines laid down in the division of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Actis Advertisers P. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (20 ITR (Trib) 138). The learned DR contended that CIT(A) ought not have restored matter to the file of TPO as entire information is available on the record and should have rendered finding on merits. It was further contended that the CIT(A) has no power of remand. IT(TP)A No.1645/Bang/2013 & C.O. No.113/Bang/2015 Page 11 of 23 9. On the other hand the lear…

ITO vs. M/S INTELLINET TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1667/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ak Garodia & Shri Vijaypal Raothe Income-Tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. M/S Intellinet Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., No.810, 5Th Cross, 12Th Main, Koramangala. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri Kc Das, Jcit, Respondent By : Shri Bharath L, Ca Date Of Hearing : 28-04-2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri KC Das, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Bharath L, CA

Section 10ASection 25(1)(a)Section 251Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’ BEFORE SHRI AK GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Income-tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. M/s INtellinet Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., No.810, 5th Cross, 12th Main, Koramangala. . Respondent Appellant by : Shri KC Das, JCIT, Respondent by : Shri Bharath L, CA Date of Hearing : 28-04-2016 Date of Pronouncement : 29-04-2016 O R D E R PER SHRI A K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax - (Appeal) - IV Bangalore dated…

DCIT vs. M/S E4E BUSINESS SOLUTIONS P. LTD.,,

ITA 1765/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. (T.P.) A. No.1765/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. M/S. E4E Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly I-Seva Systems Pvt. Ltd.) Maruthi Chambers, 17/4C, Rupena Agrahara, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 068. ….. Respondent. I.T.(T.P.) A. No.1783/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year 2008-09) (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By : Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, Cit-Iii (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 4.11.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : These Are Cross Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By Revenue, Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Bangalore Dt.8.10.2013 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III (D.R)

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…and the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the TPO to exclude companies which are functionally dissimilar subject to the guidelines laid down by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Actis Advisers P. Ltd. V DCIT 20 ITR (Trib) 138 without appreciating the fact that the directions issued are beyond the mandate of the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the IT Act which does not empower the CIT (Appeals) to set aside the issue. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that when any filter or criteria applied by the assessee is accepted or if any f…