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?

170 judgments on BharatTax cite Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (376 ITR 183), spanning 2015 to 2025.

376 ITR 183High Court2015#572 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.

170

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 368,153 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 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

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…

Imedx Information Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1755/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 1755/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA-TP No. 1755/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) iMedX Information Deputy Commissioner Services Private Limited, Vs. of Income Tax, Hyderabad Circle- 2(1), [PAN No. AABCI3550P] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध / Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 26/04/202…

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)

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 17/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Patel, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 35

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2014-15 Cadila Healthcare Ltd., DCIT, Zydus Tower, Opp. Iscon Circle-1(1)(2), Temple, Satellite Cross Vs Ahmedabad Road, Ahmedabad-15 (Respondent) PAN: AAACC6253G (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Mukesh Patel, A.R. & Shri Jigar Patel, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 21-06-2022 Date of pronouncement : 14-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against t…

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 16 (1), Mumbai vs. Tv 18 Braodcast Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is dismissed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2502/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 92F

…ITA No. 1975 & 2502/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI J BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] Assessment year: 2012-13 TV 18 Broadcast Limited ………...………….……… Appellant 1st Floor, Empire Complex, 414 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 [PAN: AACCG3666M] Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax …………..………………Respondent Central 16(1) Mumbai Assessment year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax …………..……………… Appellant Central 16(1) Mumbai Vs. TV 18 Broadcast Limited ………...………….………

ACIT -Cir 16(1), Mumbai vs. Tv 18 Braodcast Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2501/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 92F

…ITA No. 1976/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2013-14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI J BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] Assessment year: 2013-14 TV 18 Broadcast Limited ………...………….……… Appellant 1st Floor, Empire Complex, 414 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013[PAN: AACCG3666M] Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax …………..………………Respondent Central 16(1) Mumbai Assessment year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax …………..……………… Appellant Central 16(1) Mumbai Vs. TV 18 Broadcast Limited ………...………….……… Respon…

Tv 18 Broadcast Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(1), Muimbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1976/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 92F

Tv 18 Broadcast Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is dismissed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1975/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 92F

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 1

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2016-17 M/s. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. JCIT, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. PAN : AAECS 6424 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27.11.20…

Oriental Aromatics Ltd, Mumbi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6331/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 4Section 92(1)

…ITA No. 6331/Mum/2019 Assessment year 2014-15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI „J‟ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Amarjit Singh(Judicial Member)] Assessment year 2014-15 Oriental Aromatics Limited ……………….………Appellant 2nd floor, Jehangir Building 133, M G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 [PAN: AAACO4618F] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2)(2) Mumbai ……………………Respondent Appearances by Vispi Patel and Suresh Dhoot for the appellant Ajit Kumar for the respondent Dates of the hearings : 13/12/2021 Date of pronouncement : 10/03/2022 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar,…

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…

Computerland Uk Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, (It)-1, Pune

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

ITA 2505/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2505/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Computerland Uk Limited C/O. Ventura India Private Limited Commerzone, Building No. 2 & 7, 1St Floor, Survey No.144 & 145, Samrat Ashoka Path, Off. Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411 014. Pan : Aaecc4565H .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Kumar

Section 144C(5)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 2505/PUN/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ComputerLand UK Limited C/o. Ventura India Private Limited CommerZone, Building No. 2 & 7, 1st Floor, Survey No.144 & 145, Samrat Ashoka Path, Off. Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411 014. PAN : AAECC4565H .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)-1, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue by : Shri Rajiv…

Tns India Private Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), 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…