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

M/S Rittal India Pvt Ltd, Doddaballapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 2494/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S Ramasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) by
Section 143(3)

…question as to whether this is consistently loss making company or not? IT(TP)A No.2494/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 12 8. The Ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors vs. DCIT (376 ITR 183)(Delhi) and contended that the loss making companies should not be excluded, unless it was shown that the loss has been incurred due to abnormal circumstances. The Ld A.R invited our attention paragraph 29 of the order, wherein the guidelines issued by OECD (more particularly paragraph 3.65 of OECD guidelines) are extracted. He also took support…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Cenduit India Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO is partly allowed

ITA 59/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 431B

…coupled with high degree of volatility in operating profit margins is sufficient ground to reject comparables for transfer pricing analysis. In answering the above question, the Hon’ble Court however at page 218 of the report (the said decision is reported as 376 ITR 183 (del)) observed that the mere circumstance that a company-otherwise confirming to the stipulations in rule 10B(2) of the Rules in all details, presenting a peculiar feature- such as a huge profit or a huge turnover, ipso facto does not lead to its exclusion. The Court further observed that the Transfer Pricing officer, first, has to be satisfied…

Oriflame India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 328/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-.D.R

…ing norms such different from a normal Cost ratio a comparable is not trader appropriate. 12. He further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Chryscapital Investor Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that only when the material difference can be eliminated through reasonable adjustment, company can be taken as comparable, if there are dissimilarities which materially affect the price charged, etc, then first attempt has to be eliminate the components which so materially affect the price or cost a…

Chandni Bedi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 271/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-.D.R

…ing norms such different from a normal Cost ratio a comparable is not trader appropriate. 12. He further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Chryscapital Investor Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that only when the material difference can be eliminated through reasonable adjustment, company can be taken as comparable, if there are dissimilarities which materially affect the price charged, etc, then first attempt has to be eliminate the components which so materially affect the price or cost a…

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 184/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-.D.R

…ing norms such different from a normal Cost ratio a comparable is not trader appropriate. 12. He further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Chryscapital Investor Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that only when the material difference can be eliminated through reasonable adjustment, company can be taken as comparable, if there are dissimilarities which materially affect the price charged, etc, then first attempt has to be eliminate the components which so materially affect the price or cost a…

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 960/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-.D.R

…ing norms such different from a normal Cost ratio a comparable is not trader appropriate. 12. He further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Chryscapital Investor Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that only when the material difference can be eliminated through reasonable adjustment, company can be taken as comparable, if there are dissimilarities which materially affect the price charged, etc, then first attempt has to be eliminate the components which so materially affect the price or cost a…

The Bombay Samachar P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5683/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Asghar Zain V.P, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(2)(b)

…sel relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Indo Soudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd., [2009] 310 ITR 306 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd., [2011] 336 ITR 209 (Bom.); and iii) Chryscapital Investment Advisors (I) Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2015] 376 ITR 183 (Del.). 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Departmental Authorities. He also relied upon the following decisions:– i) Nund & Samont Co. P. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1970] 78 ITR 268 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Shatrunjay Diamonds, [2003] 261 ITR 258 (Bom.) and iii) Shree Laxmi Marketing (P) Ltd. V/S Acit, [2008] 119 ITD 390…

M/S Abaxial Architects P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1233/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR
Section 115Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)(ii)

…mestic company has no income and that section 115-O is non- obstante provision which overrides the general provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act; and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chrys Capital vs. DCIT 376 ITR 183 (Delhi) and the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in New Silk Route vs. DCIT – 43 CCH 372 (Mum.). 6. Ld. AR for the assessee further contended inter alia that the assessee had not paid bonus out of dividend or profit; that Ms. Suparna Bhalla, Director has paid the tax on the bonus @ 30% i.e. highest rate of tax whereas the company has to pay the…

Hackett Group (India) Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, Grounds of appeal No

ITA 2039/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Hackett Group (India) Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd, Hyderabad Tax, Circle 2(2) Pan:Aaace9813C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rishi HarlalkaFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…elow and placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Page 11 of 16 ITA No 2039 of 2017 Hackett Group India Ltd Hyderabad. Delhi HC in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.)Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 417 (Del.). A copy of the said order is also filed before us. 18.3 Having regard to the rival contentions, we find that the assessee does not own any intangibles and also its turnover is only 17.04 crores as against the huge turnover of more than 10 times i.e. 292.02 crores of R.S. Software. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIV vs.…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S Comverse Kenan India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2461/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: 2005-06 The Ac.I.T Vs. M/S. Comverse Kenan India Circle - 1, Vs Pvt. Ltd. [Known As Csg Systems India Pvt Ltd] 2Nd Floor Gurgaon Dlf Cyber City, Phase – Ii Gurgaon Pan No.: Aabcc 9425 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.213/Del/2011 (A/O In Ita No.2461/Del/2011) Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Comverse Kenan India Vs. The A.C.I.T Pvt. Ltd. [Known As Csg Circle - 1 Systems India Pvt Ltd] Gurgaon 2Nd Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Phase – Ii, Gurgaon Pan No.: Aabcc 9425 F

For Appellant: Shri G.C. SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr DR
Section 92C

…count. The ld. DR further pointed out that super profits cannot be acriteria for exclusion of any comparable. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors [India] Ltd 56 Taxmann.com 417. 25. In so far as the benefit of working capital is concerned, the ld. DR pointed out that though the FAR has referred to a chart in his order, but no such chart is found and, therefore, the basis of working capital adjustment is not known. 26. The ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that when the assessee challenges the TP adj…

DCIT vs. M/S Emc Data Storage Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 875/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Suryanarayana J. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT - DR
Section 10A

…IT(TP)A.875/Bang/2013 & CO.175/Bang/2018 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'A', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T(TP)A No.875/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -11(3), Bengaluru .. Appellant v. M/s. EMC Software and Services (India) P. Ltd, (Formerly known as EMC Data Storage Systems India P. Ltd) Bagmane World Technology Center SEZ Mahadevapura, Doddanekundi village, K. R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru 560 048 .. Respondent PAN : AABCE0989Q Cross objection No.175/Bang/2018 (I…

M/S. Candor Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Kiran, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)

…e. Admittedly, identical issue was considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of AMD Metplast P. Ltd. V. DCIT 314 ITR 563 (Del), CIT v. Career Launcher India Ltd., 358 ITR 179 (Del) also in Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT, 376 ITR 183 (Del), wherein it was held that bonus which was paid to the directors in their managerial capacity in accordance with the employment terms is to be allowed as a business deduction. Therefore, the issue raised by the assessee on merit stands squarely covered by the above judgments in favour of assessee. But there is a technical defect in the appea…

Ge Energy Parts Inc vs. Commissioner Ofincome Tax (International Taxation), Delhi - I

ITA/621/2017HC Delhi21 Dec 2018

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 260A

…rther, OECD commentary is not binding, but can only be used as a guidance, they do not form part of the treaty under doctrine of incorporation. This view finds support in the judgment of this court in Chryscapital Investment Advisors India (P) Ltd v DCIT 376 ITR 183. Further, the ITAT also relied on para 32 of the OECD commentary which says that lack of active involvement by an enterprise in transactions may be indicative of a grant of authority to an agent. 70. “Lack of” does not mean „none‟. The court notices that since the OECD commentary appears to be contradictory across paragraphs 32 and 33, it…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sonic Wall Info Security Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 340/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Laliet Kumari.T(Tp).A No.340/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1)(2), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Dell International Services India P. Ltd, (Merged With Sonic Wall Info Security P. Ltd) 4Th Floor, Wing –A, Office -1, Salarpuria Solutzone, Bellandur, Bengaluru 560 066 .. Respondent Pan : Aaeca3617Q I.T(Tp).A No.555/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) (By The Assessee) Assessee By : Shri. Raghunathan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit - Dr Heard On : 04.12.2018 Pronounced On : 13.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT - DR

…ables. We may like to add that while adjudicating these grounds, the DRP may also consider the decisions passed by the Tribunal as also the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.)Ltd. V. DCIT [(2015) 376 ITR 183. In view of the above, ground nos.2 & 3 by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose. 09. Ground no.4, raised by the Revenue, pertains to export turnover / total turnover. In this regard the parties before us have submitted that this issue has been concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of H C L Technologies Ltd [(2018) 93 ta…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Independent Technology Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed and the CO by the assessee is also partly allowed

ITA 1086/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sreenandini Das, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 92Section 92C

…coupled with high degree of volatility in operating profit margins is sufficient ground to reject comparables for transfer pricing analysis. In answering the above question, the Hon’ble Court however at page 218 of the report (the said decision is reported as 376 ITR 183 (del)) observed that the mere circumstance that a company-otherwise confirming to the stipulations in rule 10B(2) of the Rules in all details, presenting a peculiar feature- such as a huge profit or a huge turnover, ipso facto does not lead to its exclusion. The Court further observed that the Transfer Pricing officer, first, has to be satisfied…

DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Nomura Research Institute & Financial Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 485/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 284/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech.(I) Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata (Formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 8967 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 485/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata -Vs- Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech.(I) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 8967 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 92F

…rring persistent losses alone could not be a ground for rejecting a comparable. Reliance in this regard had been rightly placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt Ltd vs DCIT reported in 376 ITR 183 (Del) . Hence we direct the ld TPO to include Ancent Software International Limited (currently known as Nakshatra Infrastructure Limited) as a comparable for determining the arm’s length margin. Accordingly, the Ground No. 14 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11.1. Goldstone Technologies Limited The Ground No. 15 raised by the assessee is with…

Nomura Research Institute Financial Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Knows As Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 284/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 284/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech.(I) Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata (Formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 8967 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 485/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata -Vs- Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech.(I) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 8967 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 92F

…rring persistent losses alone could not be a ground for rejecting a comparable. Reliance in this regard had been rightly placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt Ltd vs DCIT reported in 376 ITR 183 (Del) . Hence we direct the ld TPO to include Ancent Software International Limited (currently known as Nakshatra Infrastructure Limited) as a comparable for determining the arm’s length margin. Accordingly, the Ground No. 14 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11.1. Goldstone Technologies Limited The Ground No. 15 raised by the assessee is with…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Samachar P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 35/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(a)

…isions:– i) CIT v/s Indo Soudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd., [2009] 310 ITR 306 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd., [2011] 336 ITR 209 (Bom.); and 9 The Bombay Samachar Pvt. Ltd. iii) Chryscapital Investment Advisors (I) Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2015] 376 ITR 183 (Del.). 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Departmental Authorities. He also relied upon the following decisions:– i) Nund & Samont Co. P. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1970] 78 ITR 268 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Shatrunjay Diamonds, [2003] 261 ITR 258 (Bom.) and iii) Shree Laxmi Marketing (P) Ltd. V/S Acit, [2008] 119 ITD 3…

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. J. J. Exporters Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1372/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 92C

…ilar turnover and comparable assets TPO himself has selected this comparable. Moreover, in such respect following Courts have held that turnover cannot be criteria rejecting comparable. a) Chrys capital Investment Advisors (India) Private Ltd. vs. DCIT(2015) 376 ITR 183(Del) b) Tata Mcgraw Hill Education (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 63 taxman. Com 418 (Delhi AT) c) Microchip Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 81 taxmann.com 389 (Bangalore AT) (page 38 of case law paper book) As regards segmental results being available the comparable could not have been rejected by the AO/TPO and for which reliance is pla…

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. J. J. Exporters Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1371/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 92C

…ilar turnover and comparable assets TPO himself has selected this comparable. Moreover, in such respect following Courts have held that turnover cannot be criteria rejecting comparable. a) Chrys capital Investment Advisors (India) Private Ltd. vs. DCIT(2015) 376 ITR 183(Del) b) Tata Mcgraw Hill Education (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 63 taxman. Com 418 (Delhi AT) c) Microchip Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 81 taxmann.com 389 (Bangalore AT) (page 38 of case law paper book) As regards segmental results being available the comparable could not have been rejected by the AO/TPO and for which reliance is pla…