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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Microfoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 691/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 807, New Delhi House, Circle-16(2), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AABCM6358F Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT, Vs. Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., Circle-16(2), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN: AABCM6358F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Shri Sandeep S. Karhail & Parth, Advocates Department By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT, DR…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 vs. M/S Logitech Engineering and Design India Pvt Ltd

ITA/608/2017HC Karnataka29 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. This Tribunal in the case of Obopay Mobile Technology India P Ltd in IT(TP) A Nos.388 & 469/Bang/2015 dt 08.01.2016, after considering the Delhi and Bombay High Court decisions in Chryscapital Investment Advisors India P Ltd 376 ITR 183(Del), CIT vs Pentair Water India P Ltd (Mumb) in tax appeal No. 18 of 2015 and Agnity India Technologies P Ltd (Del) 36 taxmann.com 289/219 taxman 26, the principle of judicial discipline etc., following the Bombay High Court decision upheld the DRP order in excluding 6 companies, from the list of comparables chosen by the TPO, on th…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 vs. M/S Logitech Engineering and Design India Pvt Ltd

ITA/607/2017HC Karnataka29 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. This Tribunal in the case of Obopay Mobile Technology India P Ltd in IT(TP) A Nos.388 & 469/Bang/2015 dt 08.01.2016, after considering the Delhi and Bombay High Court decisions in Chryscapital Investment Advisors India P Ltd 376 ITR 183(Del), CIT vs Pentair Water India P Ltd (Mumb) in tax appeal No. 18 of 2015 and Agnity India Technologies P Ltd (Del) 36 taxmann.com 289/219 taxman 26, the principle of judicial discipline etc., following the Bombay High Court decision upheld the DRP order in excluding 6 companies, from the list of comparables chosen by the TPO, on th…

Pr Commr of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad vs. K Ravinder Reddy, Hyderabad

ITTA/621/2017HC Telangana23 Aug 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Giesecke & Devrient India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5924/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…equent assessment year. The Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2015] 377 ITR 533 (Delhi), Chryscapital Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in [2015] 376 ITR 183 (Delhi) and Avenue Asia Advisors Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No. 350/2016) and submitted that the functionality of an entity is the key determinative factor for its inclusion or exclusion in the list of comparables and there is no such thing as estoppel on the ground that the assessee had accepted the entity as being functionally comparable…

Parsons Brinckerhoff India Private Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1037/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kambleparsons Brinchkerhoff India Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. Circle-19(2), 210, 2Nd Floor, Elegance Jasola C. R. Building, District Centre, Old Mathura Road New Delhi New Delhi Aaccp3729L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 27iSection 920(3)Section 92D

…by the Tribunal that merely company is Government Company that cannot be the sole ground for excluding the comparables. The Ld. DR also relied upon the decision of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT – (2015) 56 taxmann.com 417 (Delhi):376 ITR 183 for high turnover criteria. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that the comparables selected by the TPO are just and proper and should be retained. 10. The Ld. AR relied heavily on the decision of the ThyssenKrupp (supra) and submitted that the said case law was not cited before the Tribunal in case of Louis Dreyfus. The Ld. AR further submitted that al…

Inductis India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1438/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Inductis India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle 12(1) 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola New Delhi Tower B Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola New Delhi 110 044 Pan: Aaac18497C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Sh. S.S.Tomar, Adv. Department By : Sh. Hk Chaudhary, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2018

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. HK Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2011-12 Inductis India Pvt.Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT, Circle 12(1) 414, 4th Floor, DLF Jasola New Delhi Tower B Plot No. 10 & 11, DDA District Centre, Jasola New Delhi 110 044 PAN: AAAC18497C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Sh. S.S.Tomar, Adv. Department by : Sh. HK Chaudhary, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 18.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 13.07.2018 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present appeal has been preferred by the asse…

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

ITA 609/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Senior DR
Section 143Section 144C

…ettled principle of law that turnover should not be the sole criteria to choose a particular company for comparability rather functional similarity is a fundamental requirement. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment cited as Chrys Capital – (2015) 376 ITR 183 and CIT vs. Mckinsy Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd. – ITA No.217/2014 order dated 27.03.2015. 54. Since this company passes employee cost ratio and export cost ratio filter employed by the TPO, the turnover filters cannot be a ground for rejection of this comparable as discussed in the preceding para, so we hereby order to include this company i…

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

ITA 168/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Senior DR
Section 143Section 144C

…ettled principle of law that turnover should not be the sole criteria to choose a particular company for comparability rather functional similarity is a fundamental requirement. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment cited as Chrys Capital – (2015) 376 ITR 183 and CIT vs. Mckinsy Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd. – ITA No.217/2014 order dated 27.03.2015. 54. Since this company passes employee cost ratio and export cost ratio filter employed by the TPO, the turnover filters cannot be a ground for rejection of this comparable as discussed in the preceding para, so we hereby order to include this company i…

Clear2Pay India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 594/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoneet Dalal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Senior DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 234Section 4Section 92Section 92C

…SYS) 32. The ld. DR challenging the impugned order sought inclusion of Infosys, excluded by ld. CIT (A), on the ground that high turnover cannot be a ground for exclusion and relied upon Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT – (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del). Ld. DR also relied upon the order passed by the TPO. 33. However, the taxpayer had challenged inclusion of Infosys by the TPO on grounds of functional dissimilarity; non-availability of segmental information; Infosys is a giant company having high brand value; having its own research and development centre; and it is a full-fledged risk…

Clear2Pay India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2788/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoneet Dalal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Senior DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 234Section 4Section 92Section 92C

…SYS) 32. The ld. DR challenging the impugned order sought inclusion of Infosys, excluded by ld. CIT (A), on the ground that high turnover cannot be a ground for exclusion and relied upon Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT – (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del). Ld. DR also relied upon the order passed by the TPO. 33. However, the taxpayer had challenged inclusion of Infosys by the TPO on grounds of functional dissimilarity; non-availability of segmental information; Infosys is a giant company having high brand value; having its own research and development centre; and it is a full-fledged risk…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Clear 2 Pay India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2744/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoneet Dalal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Senior DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 234Section 4Section 92Section 92C

…SYS) 32. The ld. DR challenging the impugned order sought inclusion of Infosys, excluded by ld. CIT (A), on the ground that high turnover cannot be a ground for exclusion and relied upon Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT – (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del). Ld. DR also relied upon the order passed by the TPO. 33. However, the taxpayer had challenged inclusion of Infosys by the TPO on grounds of functional dissimilarity; non-availability of segmental information; Infosys is a giant company having high brand value; having its own research and development centre; and it is a full-fledged risk…

M/S. Keihin Panalfa Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Department stands partly

ITA 1790/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR, Smt. Namita Panday, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)

…nalysis and Spectra Industries being functionally comparable, ought to be accepted. Reliance was placed on 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. Reliance was also placed on numerous other judicial precedents wherein the ITAT and the Hon’ble High Court have laid emphasis on selection of comparables which are functionally comparable to the controlled transaction. 3.5.3 With…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Keihin Panalfa Limited, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Department stands partly

ITA 1201/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR, Smt. Namita Panday, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)

…nalysis and Spectra Industries being functionally comparable, ought to be accepted. Reliance was placed on 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. Reliance was also placed on numerous other judicial precedents wherein the ITAT and the Hon’ble High Court have laid emphasis on selection of comparables which are functionally comparable to the controlled transaction. 3.5.3 With…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Everest Business Advisory India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2562/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Everest Business Advisory Circle-11(1), Room No. 312, India (P) Ltd. C. R. Building A/1/B-27, New Delhi Janakpuri New Delhi Aabce2871R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT Vs Everest Business Advisory Circle-11(1), Room NO. 312, India (P) Ltd. C. R. Building A/1/B-27, New Delhi Janakpuri New Delhi AABCE2871R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Kumar Pranav, Sr. DR Respondent by Ms. Vandana Bhandari, CA Date of Hearing 22.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement 13.06.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed against the order dated 28/02/2013 passed by CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The gr…

Asst CIT 10(3) (OSD), Mumbai vs. Ferring Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6072/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6072/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) The Assistant Commissioner बिाम/ Ferring Pharmaceutical Of Income-Tax 10(3)(Osd) Private Limited Room No. 403, 4 Th Floor, 403/404, V. Aayakar Bhawan, Sigma Technology Street M K Road, Mumbai-400020 Hiranandani Gardens Powai , Mumbai-400076 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacf3120H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh L. RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Deshpande & Ms
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “K” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6072/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) The Assistant Commissioner बिाम/ Ferring Pharmaceutical of Income-tax 10(3)(OSD) Private Limited Room No. 403, 4 th Floor, 403/404, v. Aayakar Bhawan, Sigma Technology Street M K Road, Mumbai-400020 Hiranandani Gardens Powai , Mumbai-400076 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAACF3120H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by : Mr. Saurabh Deshpa…

M/S Marvell India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2173/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani /For Respondent: Shri C. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…he tolerance range of 10 times or 1/10th of assessee company’s turnover. At this juncture, the bench pointed out that as per judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.)Ltd. Vs. DCIT as reported in 376 ITR 183, it was held that huge profit or huge turnover, ipso facto does not lead to the exclusion of a comparable and the TPO, first, has to be satisfied that such differences do not materially affect the price or cost and secondly, an attempt is to be made for making reasonable Page 10 of 11 adjustment to eliminate the material effect of such differenc…

Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 981/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: S/ShriKanchun Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Ch.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 80JSection 92C

…ed and xiii. M/s. Wipro Ltd. (Seg.). IT(TP)A Nos.981 & 1070/Bang/2013 Page 16 of 51 20. This issue is covered in favour of the revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.)Ltd. vs. DCIT (376 ITR 183)(Delhi) wherein it was held that unless it is demonstrated that turnover has got an impact on the profitability of a concern, turnover cannot be relevant criteria to decide the comparability. The relevant paragraph is extracted herein: “33. Such being the case, it is clear that exclusion of some companies whose functions are broadly similar and w…

DCIT vs. M/S Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1070/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: S/ShriKanchun Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Ch.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 80JSection 92C

…ed and xiii. M/s. Wipro Ltd. (Seg.). IT(TP)A Nos.981 & 1070/Bang/2013 Page 16 of 51 20. This issue is covered in favour of the revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.)Ltd. vs. DCIT (376 ITR 183)(Delhi) wherein it was held that unless it is demonstrated that turnover has got an impact on the profitability of a concern, turnover cannot be relevant criteria to decide the comparability. The relevant paragraph is extracted herein: “33. Such being the case, it is clear that exclusion of some companies whose functions are broadly similar and w…

Pr. Commissioner Ofincome Tax- 2 vs. Mis Chrys Capital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/354/2018HC Delhi23 Mar 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

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…