Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT

96 Taxmann.com 263Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2018#911 most cited

What is Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

A high turnover criterion, such as above Rs. 200 crores, is a valid ground to exclude companies from the list of comparable companies in a transfer pricing analysis, as such companies are not comparable to those with significantly lower turnover.

116

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT · section 92(1) · section 92B(1) · transfer pricing · comparable companies · turnover filter · high turnover exclusion · Rs 200 crore turnover · exclusion of comparables · Rule 10B · OECD Guidelines

Sections most often in play

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37(1)Section 10ASection 10AASection 14ASection 115-OSection 143(3)Section 237

Issues it is cited on

section 92b(1)captive service providersection 132(1)(a)far analysismultiple year dataresale price methodsection 92(1)working capital adjustmentcost plus methodsafe harbour rulesrelated party transactionfunctional analysis

Judgments citing Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3088/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner Of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax, Begur Hobli, Circle – 7 (1)(2), Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1st Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. PAN: AACCV1683K APPELLANT RESPONDENT & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1st Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax,…

M/S Quest Global Engineering Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 978/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.978/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep/Smt. Girija G.P., A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik

…IT(TP)A No.978/Bang/2018 Quest Global Engineering Services (P) Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.978/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Quest Global Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. ACIT (Quality Engineering & Software Circle-5(1)(1) Technologies Pvt. Ltd. has now merged Bangalore with Quest Global Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.) No.91, 17th Cross Vs. 14th Main, Sector-4 HSR Layout Bangalore 560 102 PAN NO : AAACQ0369B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R. Pradeep…

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1310/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1309 & 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.1309 and 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/s. Transworld ICT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. PAN : AABCT 3824 F ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CA Revenue by : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department Date of hearing : 17.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan, Vi…

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1309/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1309 & 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.1309 and 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/s. Transworld ICT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. PAN : AABCT 3824 F ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CA Revenue by : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department Date of hearing : 17.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan, Vi…

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1308/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

…ver of above Rs.200 crores from the list of comparable companies is held to correct and such action does not call for any interference.” IT(TP)A Nos.1305 to 1308/Bang/2010 Page 15 of 56 17. The Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 Taxmann.com 263 (Banglore-Tribunal), took note of all the conflicting decision on the issue and rendered its decision and in paragraph 17.7. of the decision held as that high turnover is a ground for excluding companies as not comparable with a company that has low turnover. The following were the relevant observations: “17.7. We have considered the rival…

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1307/BANG/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

…ver of above Rs.200 crores from the list of comparable companies is held to correct and such action does not call for any interference.” IT(TP)A Nos.1305 to 1308/Bang/2010 Page 15 of 56 17. The Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 Taxmann.com 263 (Banglore-Tribunal), took note of all the conflicting decision on the issue and rendered its decision and in paragraph 17.7. of the decision held as that high turnover is a ground for excluding companies as not comparable with a company that has low turnover. The following were the relevant observations: “17.7. We have considered the rival…

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1306/BANG/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

…ver of above Rs.200 crores from the list of comparable companies is held to correct and such action does not call for any interference.” IT(TP)A Nos.1305 to 1308/Bang/2010 Page 15 of 56 17. The Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 Taxmann.com 263 (Banglore-Tribunal), took note of all the conflicting decision on the issue and rendered its decision and in paragraph 17.7. of the decision held as that high turnover is a ground for excluding companies as not comparable with a company that has low turnover. The following were the relevant observations: “17.7. We have considered the rival…

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1305/BANG/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

…ver of above Rs.200 crores from the list of comparable companies is held to correct and such action does not call for any interference.” IT(TP)A Nos.1305 to 1308/Bang/2010 Page 15 of 56 17. The Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 Taxmann.com 263 (Banglore-Tribunal), took note of all the conflicting decision on the issue and rendered its decision and in paragraph 17.7. of the decision held as that high turnover is a ground for excluding companies as not comparable with a company that has low turnover. The following were the relevant observations: “17.7. We have considered the rival…

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. UL India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3rd Floor, 24, EPIP Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. PAN : AAACU 2468 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. M/s. UL India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. PAN : AAACU 2468 F AP…

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. UL India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3rd Floor, 24, EPIP Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. PAN : AAACU 2468 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. M/s. UL India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. PAN : AAACU 2468 F AP…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. UL India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3rd Floor, 24, EPIP Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. PAN : AAACU 2468 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. M/s. UL India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. PAN : AAACU 2468 F AP…

M/S. Radisys India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2482/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2482/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Radisys India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, 6Th Floor, Electra Wing B, Exora Business Park, Circle - 5(1)(1), Sarjapur, Bengaluru. Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccc 3169 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahaveer C Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Mahaveer C Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

…ction of the CIT(A) excluding companies with turnover of above Rs.200 crores from the list of comparable companies is held to correct and such action does not call for any interference.” 13. The Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 Taxmann.com 263 (Banglore-Tribunal), took note of all the conflicting decision on the issue and rendered its decision and in paragraph 17.7. of the decision held as that high turnover is a ground for excluding companies as not comparable with a company that has low turnover. The following were the relevant observations: 17.7. We have considered the rival…

Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 178/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.178/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ajmera Aditya Summit, No.3D1, Ground Floor, Ward-1(1)(1), 7Th C Main Road, 3Rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 034. Pan : Aacca 5309 D Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

…ction of the CIT(A) excluding companies with turnover of above Rs.200 crores from the list of comparable companies is held to correct and such action does not call for any interference.” 13. The Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 Taxmann.com 263 (Banglore-Tribunal), took note of all the conflicting decision on the issue and rendered its decision and in paragraph 17.7. of the decision held as that high turnover is a ground for excluding companies as not comparable with a company that has low turnover. The following were the relevant observations: 17.7. We have considered the rival…

Aggressive Digital Systems Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 874/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 874/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Aggressive Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 596-597, Sector-8, Imt Ward-1(1), Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana-122050 Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanca7751J Assessee By : Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 874/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Aggressive Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 596-597, Sector-8, IMT Ward-1(1), Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana-122050 Gurgaon (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AANCA7751J Assessee by : Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 06.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the…

Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1460/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1460/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Circle-2, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs6704P Assessee By : Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1460/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 6th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Circle-2, DLF Cyber City, Phase-II, Gurgaon Gurgaon (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAJCS6704P Assessee by : Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, CA Revenue by : Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated…

M/S Software Paradigms Infotech Private Limited, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mysore

ITA 2828/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2828/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Software Paradigms The Assistant Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 316-318, Spi City, Income Tax, Hebbal Industrial Area, Circle – 1 (1), Mysuru – 570016. Mysuru. Vs. Pan: Aalcs7583C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 24.10.2017 Passed By The Acit, Circle – 1 (1), Mysuru U/S. 143(3) R.W. 92Ca R.W. 144C(5) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Orders Of The Tpo / Drp / Assessing Officer In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself To Be Assessed On A Total Income Of Rs. 10,50,75,429/- As Against Income Of Rs. 6,77,58,220/- As Declared By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 2828/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Software Paradigms The Assistant Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of No. 316-318, SPI City, Income Tax, Hebbal Industrial Area, Circle – 1 (1), Mysuru – 570016. Mysuru. Vs. PAN: AALCS7583C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri G.S. Prashanth, CA Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 29-11-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27-12-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal by the as…

M/S. Atmecs Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 187/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Atmecs Technologies Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.301, M J Towers, H-No.8-2-698, Ward -1(1)(1), Road No.12, Bengaluru. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 034. Pan : Aamca 0792 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. P.V.S.S.Prasad, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Arunkumar, Cit(Tp-2)(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 30.3.2021 By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Associated Enterprises

For Appellant: Shri. P.V.S.S.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Arunkumar, CIT(TP-2)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C

…ction of the CIT(A) excluding companies with turnover of above Rs.200 crores from the list of comparable companies is held to correct and such action does not call for any interference.” 19. The Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 Taxmann.com 263 (Bangalore-Tribunal), took note of all the conflicting decision on the issue and rendered its decision and in paragraph 17.7. of the decision held as that high turnover is a ground for excluding companies as not comparable with a company that has low turnover. The following were the relevant observations: 17.7. We have considered the riva…

San Disk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 543/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 543/Bang/2015 M/s. SanDisk India Device Design The Income Tax Officer, 2010-11 Centre Pvt. Ltd., Ward - 6(1)(1), Survey No.143/1, Amani Bellandur Bengaluru. Khane Village, Prestige Excelsior, Prestige Tech Park, Marathalli- Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kadubeesanahalli, Varthu Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 103. PAN : AAICS 9204 M 341/Bang/2015 The Income Tax Officer, M/s. SanDisk India Device 2010-11 Ward - 6(1)(1), Design C…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 341/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 543/Bang/2015 M/s. SanDisk India Device Design The Income Tax Officer, 2010-11 Centre Pvt. Ltd., Ward - 6(1)(1), Survey No.143/1, Amani Bellandur Bengaluru. Khane Village, Prestige Excelsior, Prestige Tech Park, Marathalli- Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kadubeesanahalli, Varthu Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 103. PAN : AAICS 9204 M 341/Bang/2015 The Income Tax Officer, M/s. SanDisk India Device 2010-11 Ward - 6(1)(1), Design C…

Capco Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 204/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.204/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Capco Technologies Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sjr I-Park, Ground Floor, Tower 2, Block Circle -2(1)(1), Phi, Ramagondanahalli, Whitefield S.O, Bengaluru. Bengaluru. Pan : Aadcc 4204 G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Srinivas T Bidari, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 26.04.2021 By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To Capco Group. The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Capco Belgium Bvba, Belgium. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee & Its It(Tp)A No.204/Bang/2021 Page 2 Of 27

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Srinivas T Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

…with turnover of above Rs.200 crores from the list of IT(TP)A No.204/Bang/2021 Page 13 of 27 comparable companies is held to correct and such action does not call for any interference.” 13. The Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 Taxmann.com 263 (Bangalore-Tribunal), took note of all the conflicting decision on the issue and rendered its decision and in paragraph 17.7. of the decision held as that high turnover is a ground for excluding companies as not comparable with a company that has low turnover. The following were the relevant observations: 17.7. We have considered the riva…