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

Bilakhia Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vapi vs. The ACIT., Vapi Circle, Vapi

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

ITA 795/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…Bilakhia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT- Vapi/ I.T.A.No.507/Ahd/2013/AY08-09/A.Y. 08-09 I.T.A.No’s.1415 & 1416/Ahd/2015/A.Y. 09-10 & 10-11 AND I.T.A.No.795/Ahd/2016/A.Y. 11-12 Page 1 of 66 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH – SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/AHD/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415AHD/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/AHD/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/AHD/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Y…

Bilakhia Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vapi vs. The Addl.CIT., Vapi Range, Vapi

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

ITA 1416/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…Bilakhia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT- Vapi/ I.T.A.No.507/Ahd/2013/AY08-09/A.Y. 08-09 I.T.A.No’s.1415 & 1416/Ahd/2015/A.Y. 09-10 & 10-11 AND I.T.A.No.795/Ahd/2016/A.Y. 11-12 Page 1 of 66 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH – SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/AHD/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415AHD/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/AHD/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/AHD/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Y…

Bilakhia Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vapi vs. The Jt.CIT., Vapi Range, Vapi

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

ITA 1415/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…Bilakhia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT- Vapi/ I.T.A.No.507/Ahd/2013/AY08-09/A.Y. 08-09 I.T.A.No’s.1415 & 1416/Ahd/2015/A.Y. 09-10 & 10-11 AND I.T.A.No.795/Ahd/2016/A.Y. 11-12 Page 1 of 66 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH – SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/AHD/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415AHD/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/AHD/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/AHD/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Y…

Bilakhia Holding P Ltd, Vapi vs. The Jt.CIT., Vapi Range, Vapi

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

ITA 507/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…Bilakhia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT- Vapi/ I.T.A.No.507/Ahd/2013/AY08-09/A.Y. 08-09 I.T.A.No’s.1415 & 1416/Ahd/2015/A.Y. 09-10 & 10-11 AND I.T.A.No.795/Ahd/2016/A.Y. 11-12 Page 1 of 66 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH – SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/AHD/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415AHD/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/AHD/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/AHD/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Y…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Logica Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 505/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 144C

…development companies whose turnover is below 200 crores and DRP further erred in directing the AO/TPO to exclude IT enabled services companies whose turnover is more than 200 crores whereas in case of Chriscapital Investment Advisory (India) Pvt.Ltd vs DCIT, 56 Taxmann.com 417 (2015) (12) it was held that turnover cannot be the sole criteria to reject comparables.” 2.6.1. Ld.CIT DR submitted that the issue arises from the records and there is no need to consider any fresh evidences for adjudicating the additional ground raised. Ld.CIT DR submitted that DRP erred in directing exclusion of companies whose turnover…

Evalueserve.Com P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5148/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Antil. Sr. DR

…iness environment and risks as the tested party. A detailed exposition of the legal position with specific reference to Rule 10 B (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 identify and compare the economically significant activities and responsibilities undertaken, assets used and risks assumed by the parties to the transaction. Quantitative and qualitative filters/criteria have been used in diffe…

Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1814/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantita No. 1814/Del/2017, A.Y. 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1814/Del/2017, A.Y. 2012-13 Evalueserve.com Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT A-47, Lower Ground Floor, Circle-8(2) Hauz Khas, New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACE8014F Assessee by : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 05.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 1.11.2019 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA,J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 30.01.2017, passed by…

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

ITA 6575/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Senior DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6575/Del./2016 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, 8th Floor, Tower A, Building No.5, Circle 15 (2), Cyber City, DLF Phase III, New Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 002 (Haryana). (PAN : AAACL7361E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimta, AR REVENUE BY : Shri Kumar Pranav, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 10.10.2019 Date of Order : 30.10.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER The…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1567/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…relying on Quark Systems supra in the case of Erhardt+Leimer (India) Private Limited vs ACIT (ITA Nos. 3298/Ahd/2011 & 2880/Ahd/2012; (c) ________________________________ In the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCITDelhi)/[2015] 376 ITR 183 (Delhi), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that wh…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 52/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…relying on Quark Systems supra in the case of Erhardt+Leimer (India) Private Limited vs ACIT (ITA Nos. 3298/Ahd/2011 & 2880/Ahd/2012; (c) ________________________________ In the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCITDelhi)/[2015] 376 ITR 183 (Delhi), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that wh…

Sansung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 8, New Delhi

ITA 2511/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…relying on Quark Systems supra in the case of Erhardt+Leimer (India) Private Limited vs ACIT (ITA Nos. 3298/Ahd/2011 & 2880/Ahd/2012; (c) ________________________________ In the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCITDelhi)/[2015] 376 ITR 183 (Delhi), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that wh…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 868/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…relying on Quark Systems supra in the case of Erhardt+Leimer (India) Private Limited vs ACIT (ITA Nos. 3298/Ahd/2011 & 2880/Ahd/2012; (c) ________________________________ In the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCITDelhi)/[2015] 376 ITR 183 (Delhi), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that wh…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6741/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…relying on Quark Systems supra in the case of Erhardt+Leimer (India) Private Limited vs ACIT (ITA Nos. 3298/Ahd/2011 & 2880/Ahd/2012; (c) ________________________________ In the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCITDelhi)/[2015] 376 ITR 183 (Delhi), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that wh…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Samsung India Electronics Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 3410/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…relying on Quark Systems supra in the case of Erhardt+Leimer (India) Private Limited vs ACIT (ITA Nos. 3298/Ahd/2011 & 2880/Ahd/2012; (c) ________________________________ In the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCITDelhi)/[2015] 376 ITR 183 (Delhi), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that wh…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 3248/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…relying on Quark Systems supra in the case of Erhardt+Leimer (India) Private Limited vs ACIT (ITA Nos. 3298/Ahd/2011 & 2880/Ahd/2012; (c) ________________________________ In the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCITDelhi)/[2015] 376 ITR 183 (Delhi), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that wh…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 5315/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, ShriFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

…relying on Quark Systems supra in the case of Erhardt+Leimer (India) Private Limited vs ACIT (ITA Nos. 3298/Ahd/2011 & 2880/Ahd/2012; (c) ________________________________ In the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCITDelhi)/[2015] 376 ITR 183 (Delhi), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court reiterated the same position supra that it is a settled law that comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that it is making abnormally high profits or losses. 91. The Ld. Counsel further relying on 24/7 Customer.Com (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 514 (Bangalore) submitted that wh…

M/S Sterling Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1220/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (Successor In Interest To Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/O Ibm India Pvt.Ltd,, Iii Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 Pan No.Aabct3727D/Ta-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 143Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IT(TP)A No.1220(B)/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “ C ”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (successor in interest to Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/o IBM India Pvt.Ltd,, III Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 PAN No.AABCT3727D/TA-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant by : Sri Padamchand Khincha, CA Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Kum…

Star India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(1), Thane

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 1901/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S/shri Porus Kaka &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…artefter oy? earns Hag Ht IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI aad fae, aie Fees vd st Acilst HAN Haare, MAT HEA Hh THAT | BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM araant adie F./ ITA No. 1901/Mum/2016 (faetzor af / Assessment Year 2011-12) araaHt adie F./ ITA No. 1048/Mum/2017 (fratzor af / Assessment Year 2012-13) Star India Private Limited The Asst. Commissioner of Star House, Urmi Estate, 95 Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, |Vs. |Room No. 467, 4! floor, Lower Parel (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. road, Mumbai-400 013 Mumbai-400 020 (artrereff_/ Appellant)…

Broadcom Communications Technologies Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1929/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 1929/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Broadcom Communications Technologies Private Limited (earlier known as Broadcom India Research The Deputy Private Limited) Commissioner of S1, Wipro Electronic City, Special Vs. Income Tax, Economic Zone, Doddathogur Village Circle – 1 (1) (2), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Electronic City, Bangalore – 560 100. PAN: AACCB8136B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sharath Rao, CA Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malh…

St- Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6247/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.D. Kapila, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92D

…gy) had undergone restructuring which had a significant impact upon its return and profitability. Learned counsel sought to rely upon the decision of this Court in Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ( 2015) 376 ITR 183 Del. This Court is of the opinion that the ITAT conclusions were reasonable and justified. A strong brand presence and unusual events such as amalgamation, merger, etc. – which can have a miserable impact and are discerning from the record, are reasonable grounds for excluding a particular comparable; which was a case of Wipro Technology. The Tri…