Capgemini India P. Ltd. v. ACIT

46 SOT 195Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#20917 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing Capgemini India P. Ltd. v. ACIT

Agilent Technologies (International) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

ITA 1084/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 254

…adcom India Research Private Limited in IT(TP)A No.1180/Bang/2011. Further, in the case of NXP Semiconductors India P. Ltd., Vs. ACIT in IT(TP)A No.1174/Bang/2011 also examined the above comparables. Similarly in the case of Capgemini India P. Ltd., Vs. ACIT (46 SOT 195) (Mum) has also examined these comparables. In all these decision of the Co-ordinate Benches, the objections as stated in the above column were examined in detail and the above said companies were held to be not comparable to the functionality of the said assessee's company. Since the facts are similar and assessee's business is also similar and T…

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1886/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Larsen & Toubro Infotech Dcit (Osd)-2(2) Ltd. Taxation Dept., L & T Room No. 577, 5Th Vs. House, 3Rd Floor, N.M. Marg, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ballard Estate, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacl1681P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Larsen & Toubro Infotech Jt Cit (Osd)-2(2) Ltd. Room No. 577, 5Th Vs. Taxation Dept., L & T Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, House, 3Rd Floor, N.M. Marg, M.K. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aaacl1681P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, DR
Section 10ASection 10B(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

…. 1138 and 1141/Mds/2007) (Chennai Special Bench), Patni Telecom (P) Ltd. v. ITO, 308 ITR (A.T.) 0414 (Hyderabad Bench), Willis Processing Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 4329/Mum/2008) (Mumbai Bench), Capgemini India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2011) 46 SOT 195 (Mumbai-ITAT), Relq Software (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 125 ITD 101 (Bang), Geometric Software Solutions Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 428 (Mum). Reliance is also placed by them on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. M/s 3D PLM Software Solutions Ltd. (ITA No. 46, 110 and 112 of 2014). The Ld. counsels thus submit that the AO be directed…

ITO 8(2)2, Mumbai vs. Kiara Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5040/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5040/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) I.T.O. – 8(2)-2, M/S Kiara Jewellery Pvt. बनाम/ R. No. 212/216A, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhavan, Unit No. 180, 1St Floor, M.K. Road, Sdf Vi, Mumbai – 400 020. Seepz, Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 096. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aacck4789M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Dhondial
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 70Section 71Section 72

…t, telecom charges and insurance attributable, to the delivery of goods outside India or expenses incurred in foreign exchange in providing technical services outside India. 3.3.2 I further find that in-the case of Capgemini India(P) Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2011) 46 SOT 195,Mumbai Tribunal following the decisions of ITO vs. Sak Soft Ltd. (2009) 121 TTJ (Chennai)(SB) 865 and CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery, India Ltd. (2010) 233 CTR (Bom) 248 has held that under the provisions of Expln. 2(iv) to s. 10A, expenses on freight, telecommunication charges and insurance attributable to the delivery of article or things or compute…

Aol Online India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1036/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…m India Research Private Limited in IT(TP)A No. 1180/Bang/2011. Further, in the case of NXP Semiconductors India P. Ltd., Vs. ACIT in IT(TP)A No. 1174/Bang/2011 also examined the above comparables. Similarly in the case of Capgemini India P. Ltd., Vs. ACIT [46 SOT 195] (Mum) has also examined these comparables. In all these decision of the Co-ordinate Benches, the objections as stated in the above column were examined in detail and the above said companies were held to be not comparable to the functionality of the said assessee’s company. Since the facts are similar and assessee’s business is also similar and…