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

Misys Software Solutions (I)P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1392/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sunder Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 92C

…turnover of the comparables are having any effect on the profit margin / price charged by the comparable or assessee in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT as reported in 376 ITR 183. In the present set of appeal Persistent Systems Ltd., Larsen & Toubro infotech Ltd. and Infosys Ltd. were required to be examined on the touch stone of FAR analysis by the ld. CIT(A) , but it has not been done as these comparables were removed from the list of comparables on account of turnover filter . Therefore we are remitting back the matter…

Pro Commissioner Oflncome Tax - 2 vs. M/S Chrys Capital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/286/2018HC Delhi12 Mar 2018

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

Section 92C

…mparables which might otherwise be functionally similar. The assessee urges that for AY 2006-07 after the judgment was delivered by this Court [on 27.04.2015 in Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Delhi)], the question of functional similarity was gone into and the ITAT rendered elaborate findings that Keynote Corporate Service Ltd. was entirely dis-similar. It is submitted that likewise in January, 2017, similar findings with respect to functional dis-similarity of Keynote Corporate Service Ltd. from the assessee’s business were re…

Xlhealth Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

ITA 2311/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswarajan Sarmal, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 2311/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. XLHealth Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., No. 54, Abacus Centre, 1st Main, Sarakki Industrial Area, III Phase, J P Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078. PAN: AAACX 0544K ……Appellant Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income -tax, Circle 7 (1)(2), Bangalore. .. ......Respondent Appellant by : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Biswarajan Sarmal, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 14.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement…

Oaknet Healthcare Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2097/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…ught exclusion of 8 comparables on the ground of turnover filter and functional dissimilarity. The turnover filter was not considered to be a good filter, in the light of the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Vs. DCIT (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 417 (Del). The issue of functional dissimilarity was not properly examined by the TPO. We therefore set aside the assessment order and restore the issue to the AO/TPO to re-examine the issue in the light of assessee’s contentions with respect to exclusion of 8 comparables viz., Acropetal Technologies Ltd., Micro Page 8 of 9 Genetics Systems…

Ceva Freight India Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4956/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Ceva Freight India Vs. Dcit, Private Limited (Formerly Circle-11(1), Known As Egl Eagle Global Cr Building, Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd.) New Delhi. 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No.10, Dlf Phase Ii, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacc2674H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr. DR

…lly comparable companies is taken, the differences due to particular higher or lower profit margins are ironed out. This proposition is borne out from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in ChrysCapital Investment Advisors (India) P. Ltd. VS. DCIT (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del). A company may call for 28. The TPO excluded this company on the ground of persistent losses/diminishing revenue by noticing that as against the profit ratio 22 of 2.89% for the Financial year 2003-04, this company showed loss at (-) 7.03% for the Financial year 2004-05 and loss of 21.15% for the Financial year 2005-06 relevant to the as…

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

ITA 41/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Senior DR
Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.41/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) DCIT, Circle 11 (1), vs. M/s. Everest Business Advisory India New Delhi. (P) Ltd., A – 1/B-27, Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110 058. (PAN : AABCE2871R) ITA No.1191/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/s. Everest Business Advisory India vs. DCIT, Circle 11 (1), (P) Ltd., New Delhi. A – 1/B-27, Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110 058. (PAN : AABCE2871R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: Ms. Vandana Bhandare, Advocate REVENU…

Everest Business Advisory India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1191/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Senior DR
Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.41/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) DCIT, Circle 11 (1), vs. M/s. Everest Business Advisory India New Delhi. (P) Ltd., A – 1/B-27, Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110 058. (PAN : AABCE2871R) ITA No.1191/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/s. Everest Business Advisory India vs. DCIT, Circle 11 (1), (P) Ltd., New Delhi. A – 1/B-27, Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110 058. (PAN : AABCE2871R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: Ms. Vandana Bhandare, Advocate REVENU…

Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the penalty in this respect is upheld and grounds raised by the Assessee in Cross objection on this issue is dismissed

ITA 2231/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 92C(2)

…1 ITA Nos. 2231, 2049/4788 & C.O. 432/Del IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 2231/DEL/2010(A.Y 2003-04) Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs DCIT Plot No. 40, Sector-44 LTU Gurgaon New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .No. 2094/DEL/2010(A.Y 2003-04) DCIT (LTU) Vs Whirlpool of India Ltd. NBCC Plaza Whirlpool House Pushp Vihar Plot No. 40, Sector-44 New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (APPELLANT) AAACW1336L (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .No. 4788/DEL/2012 (A.Y 2003-04) ACIT Vs Whirlpool of India Ltd. LTU,…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Whirlpool of India Ltd., Haryana

Accordingly, the penalty in this respect is upheld and grounds raised by the Assessee in Cross objection on this issue is dismissed

ITA 2094/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 92C(2)

…1 ITA Nos. 2231, 2049/4788 & C.O. 432/Del IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 2231/DEL/2010(A.Y 2003-04) Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs DCIT Plot No. 40, Sector-44 LTU Gurgaon New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .No. 2094/DEL/2010(A.Y 2003-04) DCIT (LTU) Vs Whirlpool of India Ltd. NBCC Plaza Whirlpool House Pushp Vihar Plot No. 40, Sector-44 New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (APPELLANT) AAACW1336L (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .No. 4788/DEL/2012 (A.Y 2003-04) ACIT Vs Whirlpool of India Ltd. LTU,…

M/S Vestergaard Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6670/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘I-1’, New Delhi Before : Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No. 6670/Del./2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vestergaard Asia Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 26(2), 302, Ractangle One Bldg., New Delhi. D-4, Saket, New Delhi. PAN - AACCV2729E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Amrender Kumar, CIT/DR & Sh. Kumar Pranav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement 30.11.2017 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/…

ITO vs. Finch Software India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the C

ITA 461/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaand Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 133(6)

…ted out by the bench that now this tribunal is following the judgment of Hon’ble IT(TP)A No. 461/Bang/2013 & C.O. No. 60/Bang/2016 Page 5 of 8 Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.)Ltd. Vs. DCIT as reported in 376 ITR 183 and restoring the matter back to the file of AO/TPO for fresh decision in the light of this judgment because it was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in this case that huge profit or huge turnover does not lead ipso facto to the exclusion of a comparable and the TPO first had to satisfy that such differences do not material affect the price or cos…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon

Accordingly, the penalty in this respect is upheld and grounds raised by the Assessee in Cross objection on this issue is dismissed

ITA 4788/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 92C(2)

…1 ITA Nos. 2231, 2049/4788 & C.O. 432/Del IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 2231/DEL/2010(A.Y 2003-04) Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs DCIT Plot No. 40, Sector-44 LTU Gurgaon New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .No. 2094/DEL/2010(A.Y 2003-04) DCIT (LTU) Vs Whirlpool of India Ltd. NBCC Plaza Whirlpool House Pushp Vihar Plot No. 40, Sector-44 New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (APPELLANT) AAACW1336L (RESPONDENT) I.T.A .No. 4788/DEL/2012 (A.Y 2003-04) ACIT Vs Whirlpool of India Ltd. LTU,…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Outsource Partners International Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 526/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT-III
Section 10ASection 92C(3)Section 92D

…e-examine in the light of other comparables as in the case of Swiss Re Shares Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Tribunal has directed for reconsideration on the basis of turnover filter. Whereas, after judgment of Chryscapital Investment Vs. DCIT (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 417, the turnover filter cannot be held to be a good filter unless it affects the profitability of the comparables. Therefore, Jeevan Scientific Technology Ltd., be re-examined by the TPO in the light of other filters. 9. The assessee has also sought the inclusion of the R System International Ltd., on the ground that TPO has excluded it on a…

Outsourcepartners International Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 443/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT-III
Section 10ASection 92C(3)Section 92D

…e-examine in the light of other comparables as in the case of Swiss Re Shares Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Tribunal has directed for reconsideration on the basis of turnover filter. Whereas, after judgment of Chryscapital Investment Vs. DCIT (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 417, the turnover filter cannot be held to be a good filter unless it affects the profitability of the comparables. Therefore, Jeevan Scientific Technology Ltd., be re-examined by the TPO in the light of other filters. 9. The assessee has also sought the inclusion of the R System International Ltd., on the ground that TPO has excluded it on a…

British Marine Plc-India Branch, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 1(3)(2)

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1908/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S British Marine Plc- Dcit(It)-1(3)(2) India Branch Mumbai. Vs. 903, ‘C’ Wing, 215, Antrium, Next To Courtyard, Marriot, A.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400065 Pan No. Aaaco6627Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jiger Saiya & Shri Darshan Dalal, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhenan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri Jiger Saiya &For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhenan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s British Marine PLC- DCIT(IT)-1(3)(2) India Branch Mumbai. Vs. 903, ‘C’ Wing, 215, Antrium, Next to Courtyard, Marriot, A.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400065 PAN No. AAACO6627Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Jiger Saiya & Shri Darshan Dalal, AR Revenue by : Shri V. Jenardhenan, DR Date of Hearing : 31/07/2017 Date of pronouncement : 27/10/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant a…

Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 260/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Laliet Kumari.T(Tp).A No.260/Bang/2015) (Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. Ramadhyaini, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Jha, CIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…IT(TP)A.260/Bang/2015 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'B', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T(TP).A No.260/Bang/2015) (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Microchip Technology (India) P. Ltd, .. Appellant No.149B, EPIP, 1st Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield, Bengaluru 560 066 PAN : AABCM9868J v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -4(1), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Ramadhyaini, CA Revenue by : Shri. Rajesh Jha, CIT - DR Heard on : 14.08.2017 Pronounced on : 27.10.2017 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDIC…

DCIT vs. M/S Verisign Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal and C

ITA 1230/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K. Prasad & Umashankar Gautam, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, Bengaluru
Section 10A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “ B ” BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(T.P) A. No.1230/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Verisign Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Summit, No.6/B, 7th Main, 3rd Tax, Circle 12(5), Bangalore. Block, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala Indl. Layout, Bangalore-560 034 Appellant Respondent. C.O. No.164/Bang/2015 (In I.T.(T.P) A. No.1230/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year : 2008-09) (By Assessee) Assessee By : S/Shri P.K. Prasad & Umashankar Gautam, Advocates. Revenue By : Ms. Neer…

M/S Moog India Technology Center Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 129/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT-III
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…ssessee. Needless to say that while adjudicating the issues, the DRP shall be bound to consider the law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of IT(TP)A.129/Bang/2016 Page - 9 Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.)Ltd. V. DCIT [(2015 376 ITR 183], as well as the order passed by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of ACI Worldwide Solutions in IT(TP)A.262/Bang/2015, dt.26.07.2017. In view thereof the ground nos.1 to 15, pertaining to TP raised by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the DRP for adjudication afresh. 14. Ground nos.16 to 18 pertain to computation of…

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee and C

ITA 50/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 426/Bang/2015 Assistant Commissioner Of Mindteck (India) Ltd., 2010-11 Income Tax, Prestige Atlanta, Circle 12(1), No.10, Industrial Layout, 7Th Main, 80 Ft. Road, Bengaluru 3Rd Block,Bengaluru-560034. Pan : Aaach1072Q 50/Bang/2015 Mindteck (India) Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of 2010-11 Bengaluru. Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), No.14/3, Pan : Aaach1072Q 4Th Floor, Rastrothana Bhavan, (Opp Rbi), Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru-560001. C.O. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 37/Bang/2016 M/S. Mindteck (India) Assistant Commissioner 2010-11 Ltd., Bengaluru Of Income Tax, [In It(Tp)A Pan : Aaach1072Q Circle 12(1), No.426/Bang/2016] Bengaluru. Assessee/C.O. By : Shri. Sampath Raghunathan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. G. R. Reddy, Cit-Dr-I

For Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT-DR-I
Section 10A

…ounds raised in assessee’s appeal with regard to IT segment should be adjudicated together. During the course of hearing, both the parties have agreed that in the light of the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Vs. DCIT (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 417, the turnover filter should not be applied unless and until it is established that it effects the profitability of the comparables. In the light of these facts, we are of the view that let the TPO/AO determine the ALP in IT segment without invoking the turnover filter. Therefore, we set aside the order of the AO passed consequent to direct…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee and C

ITA 426/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 426/Bang/2015 Assistant Commissioner Of Mindteck (India) Ltd., 2010-11 Income Tax, Prestige Atlanta, Circle 12(1), No.10, Industrial Layout, 7Th Main, 80 Ft. Road, Bengaluru 3Rd Block,Bengaluru-560034. Pan : Aaach1072Q 50/Bang/2015 Mindteck (India) Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of 2010-11 Bengaluru. Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), No.14/3, Pan : Aaach1072Q 4Th Floor, Rastrothana Bhavan, (Opp Rbi), Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru-560001. C.O. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 37/Bang/2016 M/S. Mindteck (India) Assistant Commissioner 2010-11 Ltd., Bengaluru Of Income Tax, [In It(Tp)A Pan : Aaach1072Q Circle 12(1), No.426/Bang/2016] Bengaluru. Assessee/C.O. By : Shri. Sampath Raghunathan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. G. R. Reddy, Cit-Dr-I

For Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT-DR-I
Section 10A

…ounds raised in assessee’s appeal with regard to IT segment should be adjudicated together. During the course of hearing, both the parties have agreed that in the light of the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Vs. DCIT (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 417, the turnover filter should not be applied unless and until it is established that it effects the profitability of the comparables. In the light of these facts, we are of the view that let the TPO/AO determine the ALP in IT segment without invoking the turnover filter. Therefore, we set aside the order of the AO passed consequent to direct…