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

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 368,155 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 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 92C(3)Section 92CA

Issues it is cited on

multiple year datatested partysection 92fsection 92c(3)far analysistransactional net margin methodcomparable companiesworking capital adjustmentarms length pricespecified domestic transactionmost appropriate methodarm's length price

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

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 213/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2021AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

…ITA Nos. 954/Ahd/17 and 213/Ahd/18 Assessment years: 2012-13 and 2013-14 Page 1 of 85 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt, President, and Pramod Kumar, Vice President] ITA Nos. 954/Ahd/2017 and 213/Ahd/2018 Assessment years: 2012-13 and 2013-14 Cadila Healthcare Limited …………….………Appellant Zydus Tower, Satellite Cross Road, Ahmedabad 380 015 [PAN: AAACC6253G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad ……………………Respondent Appearances by Mukesh Patel along with Prashant Maheshwari for the appellant Mohd Usman for the respondent Date…

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 954/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…ITA Nos. 954/Ahd/17 and 213/Ahd/18 Assessment years: 2012-13 and 2013-14 Page 1 of 85 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt, President, and Pramod Kumar, Vice President] ITA Nos. 954/Ahd/2017 and 213/Ahd/2018 Assessment years: 2012-13 and 2013-14 Cadila Healthcare Limited …………….………Appellant Zydus Tower, Satellite Cross Road, Ahmedabad 380 015 [PAN: AAACC6253G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad ……………………Respondent Appearances by Mukesh Patel along with Prashant Maheshwari for the appellant Mohd Usman for the respondent Date…

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…

Bilakhia Holding P Ltd, Vapi vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 182/SRT/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A’S No.181 & 182/Srt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Bilakhia Holding P Ltd., Vs The Assistant Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, . Commissioner Of Income Chala, Surat – 394 520. Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Gopalakrishnan Aiyer – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Usha Shrote – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 19.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Memeber: 1. Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here In After Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr.SHRI ARJUN LAL SAINI, Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A’s No.181 & 182/SRT/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Bilakhia Holding P Ltd., Vs The Assistant Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, . Commissioner of Income Chala, Surat – 394 520. Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. [PAN: AADCS 4420 J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee by Shri Gopalakrishnan Aiyer – AR राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue by Smt. Usha Shrote – Sr.DR सुन…

Bilakhia Holding P Ltd, Vapi vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 181/SRT/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A’S No.181 & 182/Srt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Bilakhia Holding P Ltd., Vs The Assistant Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, . Commissioner Of Income Chala, Surat – 394 520. Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Gopalakrishnan Aiyer – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Usha Shrote – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 19.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Memeber: 1. Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here In After Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr.SHRI ARJUN LAL SAINI, Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A’s No.181 & 182/SRT/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Bilakhia Holding P Ltd., Vs The Assistant Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, . Commissioner of Income Chala, Surat – 394 520. Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. [PAN: AADCS 4420 J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee by Shri Gopalakrishnan Aiyer – AR राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue by Smt. Usha Shrote – Sr.DR सुन…

M/S Bergen Engines India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5543/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Bergen Engines India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit 2Nd Floor, 52-B, Okhla Circle-4(2) Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-3, Okhla New Delhi Aaecb7223M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 92C

…h the trading segment of the assessee in which there is extreme functional difference. The Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble High Court upheld the importance of functional comparability for determination of ALP. Similar view has been upheld by Hon’ble Delhi HC in case of PCIT vs. Open Solutions Software Services P Ltd. Thus, while under TNMM the sensitivity is reduced, the Ld. AR submitted placing reliance on Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (s…

Bmc Software India Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 219/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.219/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 143(3)

…comparable companies is taken, differences due to a particular higher or lower profit margin are ironed out. This proposition is borne out from the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ChrysCapital Investment Advisors (India) P. Ltd. VS. DCIT (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del). 24. However, a company may call for exclusion if it is consistently posting losses due to exceptional reasons. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities (P) Ltd. (2016) 290 CTR 236 (Bom) did not treat a company as a persistent loss making company qualifying immediately two earlier years in a row.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Bmc Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 209/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.219/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 143(3)

…comparable companies is taken, differences due to a particular higher or lower profit margin are ironed out. This proposition is borne out from the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ChrysCapital Investment Advisors (India) P. Ltd. VS. DCIT (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del). 24. However, a company may call for exclusion if it is consistently posting losses due to exceptional reasons. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities (P) Ltd. (2016) 290 CTR 236 (Bom) did not treat a company as a persistent loss making company qualifying immediately two earlier years in a row.…

Marathon Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 6100/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Marathon Electric India Pvt. Vs Acit Ltd. Circle-1 Sector-11, Faridabad Model Town Faridabad (Respondent) Aaacg5525H (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 144Section 254Section 92D

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Marathon Electric India Pvt. Vs ACIT Ltd. Circle-1 Sector-11, Faridabad Model Town Faridabad (RESPONDENT) AAACG5525H (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv Respondent by Sh. Surendar Pal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 01.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 27.11.2020 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 19.10.2012 passed under Section 254/143(3) read with Section 144 C of the Inc…

M/S. Denso India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1078/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Denso India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit B-1/D4, Ground Floor, Circle-7(1) Mohan Cooperative Industrial New Delhi Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi (Respondent) Aaacd4255F (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv & Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv Respondent By Sh. Surendar Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2020

Section 144Section 254Section 92CSection 92D

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Denso India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT B-1/D4, Ground Floor, Circle-7(1) Mohan Cooperative Industrial New Delhi Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi (RESPONDENT) AAACD4255F (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv & Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv Respondent by Sh. Surendar Pal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 01.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 23.11.2020 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 27/11/2015 p…

Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.124/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2012-13 Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.6, Sector-5, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon-122050. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaecs5991H Vs The Acit, Circle-5(1), Room No.G-15B, C.R.Building, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi-110002. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M.Barnwal, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “आई-2”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य" एवं "ी "शांत मह"ष", लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.124/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2012-13 Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.6, Sector-5, IMT manesar, Gurgaon-122050. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AAECS5991H vs The ACIT, Circle-5(1), Room No.G-15B, C.R.Building, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi-110002. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, C…

Midland Credit Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 6, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part on the grounds argued before us whereas the appeal of the revenue stands

ITA 3892/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT - DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s Midland Credit Management Vs. The Addl. C.I.T India Pvt Ltd Special Range - 6 C/o Regus Business Centre New Delhi Eros Corporate Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN: AAECM 3260 F [Assessment Year: 2010-11] The Addl. C.I.T Vs. M/s Midland Credit Management Special Range - 6 India Pvt Ltd New Delhi C/o Regus Business Centre Eros Corporate Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN: AAECM 3260 F [Appell…

Addl.CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Midland Credit Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part on the grounds argued before us whereas the appeal of the revenue stands

ITA 3765/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT - DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/s Midland Credit Management Vs. The Addl. C.I.T India Pvt Ltd Special Range - 6 C/o Regus Business Centre New Delhi Eros Corporate Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN: AAECM 3260 F [Assessment Year: 2010-11] The Addl. C.I.T Vs. M/s Midland Credit Management Special Range - 6 India Pvt Ltd New Delhi C/o Regus Business Centre Eros Corporate Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN: AAECM 3260 F [Appell…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Louis Dreyfus Commudities India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1571/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & AnubhavFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr.D.R

…payer relied upon the order passed by the Id. DRP and contended that all these contentions now raised by the Id. AR for the taxpayer have been extensively dealt with by the Id. DRP and relied upon Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 376 ITR 183 (Del.) and Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 533 delivered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 17. When we examine the business profile of TCS E-Serve, available at pages 69, 83 and 21 of the annual report compilation, no doubt the TCS E-Serve is primarily engaged in providing Business Process Services (BPO) to its customers in banking, fin…

Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1555/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & AnubhavFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr.D.R

…payer relied upon the order passed by the Id. DRP and contended that all these contentions now raised by the Id. AR for the taxpayer have been extensively dealt with by the Id. DRP and relied upon Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 376 ITR 183 (Del.) and Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 533 delivered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 17. When we examine the business profile of TCS E-Serve, available at pages 69, 83 and 21 of the annual report compilation, no doubt the TCS E-Serve is primarily engaged in providing Business Process Services (BPO) to its customers in banking, fin…

DCIT - 8(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Maritime (India) P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed as having become infructuous

ITA 6397/MUM/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 6397//मुं/2006 ("न.व. 2003-04) आअसं. 1548//मुं/2009 ("न.व. 2004-05) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 10(2)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Uodhal Raj SinghFor Respondent: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &

…the ld. AR placed reliance on following decisions: i. CIT vs. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P. Ltd., 240 Taxman 736 (Bom); ii. Joy Alukkas India P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 228 Taxman 35 (Kerala); and iii. Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 376 ITR 183 (Delhi). 5 ITA NO.1548/MUM/2009 (A.Y.2004-05) C.O.No.171/Mum/2009 (A.Y. 2204-05) 4. Per contra, Shri Uodhal Raj Singh representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order and the order of TPO. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the TPO has rightly excluded loss making companies from the list of comparables. 5.…

Cheminova India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2038/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan R. Vora/Mr. Pranay Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Cheminova India Limited, The Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), The Centrium, Office No. 2, 458, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. 4th Floor, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400070. PAN No. AAACL1117E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajan R. Vora/Mr. Pranay Gandhi, AR Revenue by : Mr. Anand Mohan, DR Last Date of Hearing : 09/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27/07/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal f…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Open Solutions Software Services Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA/201/2018HC Delhi18 May 2020
Section 115JSection 143Section 144CSection 260ASection 92C

…ess environment and risks as the tested party. A detailed exposition of the legal position with specific reference to Rule 10B(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is found in this Court's decision in Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 376 ITR 183 (Del) as under: “30. The reasoning adopted in various judgments noticed above, shows that functional analysis seeks to 2020:DHC:1934-DB ITA 201/2018 Page 22 of 32 identify and compare the economically significant activities and responsibilities undertaken, assets used and r…

Marlabs Software Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 544/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.544/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

…544/Bang/2015 CO No.160/Bang/2015 A. Y : 2010 – 11 cannot be excluded merely because of high or low turnover. Ld.CIT DR placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Chriscapital Investment Advisers (India) Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT reported in 56 Taxmann.com 417 (2015). 12.2. Ld.AR submitted that authorities below applied lower limit of turnover filter of Rs.1 crore and ignored applying an upper turnover filter. It was submitted that, consistently revenue always took stand that turnover is not a relevant filter in software industry. It has been contended by revenue that in software industry size h…

M/S. Metricstream Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2347/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2347/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015 – 16

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2347/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015 – 16 M/s Metric Stream Infotech The Asst. Commissioner of (India) Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, AMR Tech Park-4B, Circle-4(1)(2), No.23 & 24, Hongasandra Vs. Bengaluru. Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru-560 068. PAN – AACCM 4991 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 11-03-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 24-04-2020…