Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10B(3), Section 10B(2)(a), Section 133(6), Section 10B(1), Section 10B(2), Section 10B(4).

Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd.

Q: How many judgments cite Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd.?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd. (133 ITD 543), spanning 2015 to 2025.

133 ITD 543Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#4105 most cited

What is Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd. authority for?

The revenue authorities cannot exclude comparable companies from the final list if the Assessing Officer (AO)/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had not rejected them, even if the revenue representative believes they do not pass the comparability test.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd. · 133 ITD 543 · 16 Taxmann.com 47 · ITAT · transfer pricing · comparability · comparable companies · TPO · revenue representative · exclusion of comparables · Section 92C

Also reported as

16 Taxmann.com 47

Sections most often in play

Section 10B(3)Section 10B(2)(a)Section 133(6)Section 10B(1)Section 10B(2)Section 10B(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

captive service provider tested party specified domestic transaction transactional net margin method most appropriate method comparable companies tnmm associated enterprise associated enterprises transfer pricing adjustment international transaction section 92c

Judgments citing Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd.

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 927/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT

Section 143Section 254(1)

…see. In service sector higher turnover reflects higher margin because it is primarily the customer's satisfaction which is relevant in selecting the service provider even at the payment of higher margins. 40. In Merker equitable service centre India Pvt. Ltd. 133 ITD 543, it was held that Infosys BPO cannot be considered as a comparable to a captive service provider, like assessee. 41. Ld. DR has submitted that Actis is also a brand and, therefore, adjustment should be made for the difference. We are unable to accept this contention particularly because the department has not brought on record any brand value of…

Asb International Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ACIT Cir-1, Kalyan

ITA 2137/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Karshima Phatarphekar & Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 92

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ “ “ “ केकेकेके” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, , , , शि"जीत डे एवं शि"जीत डे शि"जीत डे, "याियक शि"जीत डे "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Saktijit Dey,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA(TP)/No.2137/Mum/2016 : िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year…

Acusis Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 442/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Sudhakar Rao, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE ` BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.442/Bang/2011 (Assessment year: 2004-05) Assessee’s Appeal M/s. Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 17/2, Dollars Chambers, Ward-11(1), Bangalore. Lalbagh Road, Bangalore – 560 027. PAN : AADCA2415P Appellant Respondent Revenue’s Appeal IT(TP)A No.444/Bang/2011 (Assessment year: 2004-05) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd., Ward-11(1), Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. PAN : AADCA2415P Appel…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…on'ble Bangalore Tribunal in Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 107 ITD 141/15 SOT 49/162 Taxman 119 (Bang.) (SB) as well as Mumbai Tribunal decision in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Maersk Global Service Center (India)(P.) Ltd. [2011] 133 ITD 543/16 taxmann.com 47 (Mum.) wherein while interpreting the transfer pricing provisions, the Courts have held that it is the assessee who is the best judge to know the transactions undertaken and thus finding out the comparable cases from the vast database available in the public domain. Once the assessee has adopted the same, the AO has to examine w…

ACIT 18(2), Mumbai vs. Keshav & Company, Mumbai

ITA 6276/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 45(4)

…TA 5639/Mum/2014 ITA 6276/Mum/2014 CO No.273/Mum/2015 case cannot be roped in the proceedings before the Tribunal. In support, he relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Prakash I Shah -115 ITD 167(Mum)(SB); (ii) Maersk Global Service Centre India Pvt Ltd - 133 ITD 543; (iii) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. -122 TTJ 577 (Mum SB). On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that, this issue is directly related to the subject matter and in the additional ground the revenue is pleading that, alternatively, the amount in transaction should be treated as sales and consequently taxed as business income. This is purely a legal…

Keshav and Company, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

ITA 5639/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 45(4)

Actis Global Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, ground no. 9 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6175/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Atul Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…er turnover reflects higher margin because it is primarily the customer’s satisfaction which is relevant in selecting the service provider even at the payment of higher margins. 19 ITA No.6175/Del./2015 40. In Merker equitable service centre India Pvt. Ltd. 133 ITD 543, it was held that Infosys BPO cannot be considered as a comparable to a captive service provider, like assessee. 41. Ld. DR has submitted that Actis is also a brand and, therefore, adjustment should be made for the difference. We are unable to accept this contention particularly because the department has not brought on record any brand value of…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Telelogic India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 30/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…(A) had not concurred with the views of the assessee-company and therefore, confirmed the action of the TPO in including this company in the list of comparables. The Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Maersk Global Service Center (India) P Ltd. (133 ITD 543)(Mum) held that this company cannot be considered as a comparable as it outsourced major portion of the business. This decision was subsequently followed by the same bench in the case of ACIT vs. Hapag Lloyd Global Services Pvt. Ltd. (TS-47-ITAT- 2013)(Mum); Nomura Fin Services (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2013) 33 taxmann.com 4 (Mum-Trib); Hydera…

DCIT vs. M/S Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the

ITA 869/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Ramarao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT

Section 10A

…n this regard he relied on the following decisions; M/s Wipro BPO Solutions Ltd. has to be rejected as a comparable on the basis of high turnover in view of Hon’ble ITAT in the following decisions; i. ACIT Vs Maersk Global Service Centre (Ind.)Pvt.Ltd(2011) 16 Taxmann.com 47 (Mum) for AY: 2005-06 ii. Market Tools Research Pvt.Ltd. TS-30-ITAT-2014(HYd.)-TP-AY: 2005-06. iii.Deloite Consulting India Pvt.Ltd TS-401-iTAT-2011(Hyd.)-TP-AY: 2004-05 iv. 24/7 Customer.com Pvt.Ltd. vs DCIT TS-708-ITAT-2012(Bang)-TP-AY: 2004-05. 13 ITA No.869(B)/13 & CO No.168(B)/15 He further submitted that M/s Nucleus Netsoft Ltd. h…