Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 92CA(3), Section 143(2), Section 144B, Section 144C, Section 144C(13).

Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

Q: How many judgments cite Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT?

100 judgments on BharatTax cite Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (376 ITR 183), spanning 2016 to 2025.

376 ITR 183High Court2015#1110 most cited

What is Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

For transfer pricing comparability analysis, companies should not be excluded solely based on higher turnover if they are otherwise functionally comparable, unless the turnover difference reflects fundamental functional dissimilarities, brand value, or risk profiles that materially impact profitability.

100

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT · turnover filter validity · transfer pricing comparable companies · functional comparability criteria · Section 92CA(3) application · Section 92C(3) analysis · exclusion of comparables for high turnover · arm's length price determination · giant company in comparables · Infosys Technologies Ltd. exclusion.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 92CA(3)Section 143(2)Section 144B Section 144C Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)Section 92CA

Issues it is cited on

multiple year data tested party section 92f section 92c(3)far analysis transactional net margin method comparable companies working capital adjustment arms length price specified domestic transaction most appropriate method arm's length price

Judgments citing Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

FEDEX EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4783/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 4783/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 FedEx Express Vs. ACIT 1(3)(1), Transportation and Mumbai Supply Chain Services Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Private Limited Mumbai-400020 Boomerang, Unit No.801, 8th Floor, Wings A & B1 Chandivali Farm Road Andheri East, Mumbai-400072 PAN:AABCF6516A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sriram Seshadri/Ms.Amulya K. Respondent by Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.07.2…

ATMECS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1681/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. K.J. Dhivya

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…rofitability details from 2002 – 2022 and held that turnover does not have any significance on the profit margins in software industry. He relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Chris Capital Investment Advisors Private Limited 376 ITR 183 and held that when the comparable companies which are otherwise functionally comparable cannot be excluded merely on account of high turnover particularly when the assessee has not demonstrated as to how the turnover has materially affected the profitability or comparability. Thus, the learned transfer pricing officer rejected the objection of th…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1166/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Sony India Private Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 24 (1), A-18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 044. (PAN : AABCS1571Q) DCIT, Circle 24 (1), vs. M/s. Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi. A-18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi – 110 044. (PAN : AABCS1571Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 19.06.2024 Date of Order…

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1026/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

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

ADIT, CIRLCE- 1(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, NEW DELHI vs. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANKING CORP. (INDIA BRANCH), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6455/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 92C(3)Section 92F

…e to Assessee and further submitted that quantum turnover can be no reason for exclusion of a company which is otherwise comparable and relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Chrys Capital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. (376 ITR 183). 19. We have heard the parties perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) after verifying the record found that the turnover is ITeS segment is only about Rs. 86,00,000/- out of total turnover of Rs. 7.23 Crore (i.e. 6.37 crore pertain to software services and remaining Rs. 0.86 crore pertains to ITEs Segment), whereas the turn…

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANKING CORP. (INDIA BRANCH),NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, CIRLCE- 1(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6253/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 92C(3)Section 92F

ISOFT HEALTH MANAGEMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 976/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.976/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Isoft Health Management India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Capital . Income Tax, Towers, No. 180, Kodambakkam High Corporate Circle 2(2), Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aalcs8600A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaragahavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.02.2015 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaragahavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

…R 216] was also taken note of in PCIT Vs. Sanvih Info Group Private Limited (I.T. Appeal No.420 of 2019 (Del. HC) dated 16.05.2019. The Court noted the discussion in Chry Capital Investment Advisors India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2015 376 ITR 183 (Del)], wherein it was stated that Infosys Technologies Ltd. cannot be compared with the respondent assessee (therein), as seen from the financial data and it should be excluded from the list of comparables for the reason that it was a giant Company in the area of development of software. 8. In PCIT Vs. Symphony Marketing Solutions India Pvt. Ltd…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I vs. M/S P.R. ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/354/2018HC Rajasthan15 Mar 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,BHUWAN GOYAL

Section 92C

…$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 354/2018 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S CHRYS CAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Srivastava, Advocate with Mr. Mayank Aggarwal and Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R % 23.03.2018 Admit. Issue notice. Mr. Vikas Srivastava, Advocate accepts notice on…

QAD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is disposed off as being general in nature, Ground No. 2 relating to selection of comparables is partly allowed in terms of paragraph 5 to 6

ITA 4098/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Ms. RiddhiFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…high turnover. A company with high turnover can be excluded from the list of comparables in case such turnover results in differences which cannot be eliminated [Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax: [2015] 376 ITR 183 (Delhi)]. However, we note that the Appellant had also sought exclusion of the following 6 comparables on the ground of functional dissimilarity. The relevant extract of paragraph 4.4 of the CIT(A) order reads as under: “4.4 In appeal, on other hand, it is submitted that QAD was established in 2005 as a Global Resources Centers however, QAD Indi…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,(ERSTWHILE VCOSTOMER SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1618/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1404 & 1618/Del/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “I” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 1404/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. DCIT, बनाम Ltd. [Erstwhile vCustomer Vs. Services India Pvt. Ltd.] Circle : 21 (1), C–95, Lower Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar – I, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 024. PAN : AABCV0770E A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 1618/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, M/s. Rampgreen बनाम Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Circle : 21 (1), [Er…

M/S. RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1404/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 211/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)

…IT(TP)A No.211/Bang/2022 M/s. Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.211/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mindteck (India) Limited Block-1, 3rd Foor, 664 23/24 AMR Techpark Deputy Commissioner Hosur Main Road of Income-tax Vs. Bommanahalli, Circle-4(1)(1) Bangalore 560 068 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACH1072Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.R. Respondent by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date of Hearing 21 11 2022 Date of Prono…

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 579/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…the perusal of record, it is evident that Spectrum Business Solutions Limited was rejected as a comparable by the TPO by applying the turnover filter. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Chrys Capital Investment Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT: [2015] 376 ITR 183 held that if the company is functionally comparable then same cannot be rejected on the basis of turnover. Thus, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we hold that Spectrum Business Solutions Ltd. cannot be held to be incomparable simply on the ground of low turnover, unless it is demonstrated that the functi…

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

ITA 176/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: “1. On the facts and circumstances o

Section 254(1)Section 68

…rs meeting for the respective financial years / assessment years. Therefore, we also observe that the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case AMD Metaplast Ltd. (supra) and Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 376 ITR 183 (Del) support the claim of the assessee and we hold so. Therefore, Ground No.2 of assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 is allowed and the AO is directed to allow claim of assessee regarding payment of commission / additional remuneration to its Directors.” 8. We find that similar disallowance was deleted for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 by following the or…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

ITA 175/SRT/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: “1. On the facts and circumstances o

Section 254(1)Section 68

M/S. SULZER TECH INDIA P. LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL./JT./ DY./ ASSTT. CIT/ INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

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

ITA 633/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Saeana a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…ct the TPO to comply with the directions rendered by the learned DRP in para 18.3 of its directions dated 18/03/2021. Before concluding, it is relevant to note that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Chrys Capital Investment Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT: [2015] 376 ITR 183 held that if the company is functionally comparable then same cannot be rejected on the basis of turnover. We order accordingly. Thus, with the above directions, ground no. 1, including grounds no. 1.1 and 1.2, raised in assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. M/s. Sulzer Tech India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.633/Mum./2021 16. The issue aris…

DCIT 15(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. NOMURA STRUCTURED FINANCE SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1711/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Smt. Vatsalya Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…ess and of course it is shown that turnover or huge profit is on account of factor leading to a different results in function, asset and risk analysis. We find that Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Chrys Capital Investment Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT: [2015] 376 ITR 183 held that if the company is functionally comparable then same cannot be rejected on the basis of turnover. Thus, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court, we hold that M/s CG VAK Software & Exports Ltd. cannot be held to be incomparable simply on the ground of low turnover, unless it is demonstrated that the func…

TNS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 636/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak ChopraFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai. (CIT-D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…g high turn over does not ipso facto render it ineligible for inclusion in the array of comparables since we are dealing with service sector segment only. He quote hon’ble Delhi high court’s decision in PCIT-2 Vs. M/s. CHRYS CAPITAL INVESMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD 376 ITR 183 (Del) and M/s. Society General Global Solution Centre Limited 69 taxman.com 336 (Bang). We find no merit in the assessee's former twin substantive grounds since the DRP herein has directed exclusion of M/s. Infosys BPO Limited not only on the basis of turnover but due to its brand value, diversified activity as other functional dissimilarity as w…

M/S MICROSHIP TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 323/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmay Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Microchip Technology India The Dy. Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Plot No.149-B EPIP Phase Circle-4(1)(2), Industrial Area, Vs. Bengaluru. Whitefield, Bengaluru-560 066. PAN – AABCM 9868 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Tanmay Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 10-03-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 14-06-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by ass…

Showing 1–20 of 100 · Page 1 of 5