Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 92CA(3), Section 143(2), Section 144B, Section 144C, Section 144C(13).

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

Q: How many judgments cite Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT?

170 judgments on BharatTax cite Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (376 ITR 183), spanning 2015 to 2025.

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 144B Section 144C Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)Section 92CA

Issues it is cited on

multiple year data tested party section 92f section 92c(3)far analysis transactional net margin method comparable companies working capital adjustment arms length price specified domestic transaction most appropriate method arm's length price

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

DCIT vs. Sharp Software Def. India Pvt. Ltd

In the result, appeal of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1826/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodiait(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.1819/Bang/2013 M/S. Sharp Software Dy. Commissioner Of 2004-05 Development India Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-12(3), 14/3, 4Th Floor, Unit-5, Level-3, Innovator International Tech Park, Rastrothana Bhavan (Opp. Whitefield Road, Rbi), Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru-560066. Bengaluru-560001. Pan: Aaecs0269E No.1826/Bang/2013 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Sharp Software 2004-05 Income-Tax, Development India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-12(3), Pan: Aaecs0269E Bengaluru-560001. C.O. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 9/Bang/2016 M/S. Sharp Software Dy. Commissioner Of 2004-05 Development India Pvt. Income-Tax, (In It(Tp)A Ltd., Circle-12(3), No.1819/Bang/2013) Pan: Aaecs0269E Bengaluru-560001. Revenue By : Smt. H. L. Sowmya Achar, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayan, Ca

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. L. Sowmya Achar, Addl. CIT

…9,1826/Bang/2013, CO No.9/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 18 iii. Satyam Computer Services Limited iv. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited v. Xcelvision Technologies Limited The learned DR invited our attention to the judgment of Chryscapital 4. Investment Vs. DCIT (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 417, in which it has been held that turnover filter cannot be applied unless and until it is established that it effects the profitability of the comparables. The CIT(A) has out rightly applied the turnover filter as to 1:200 crores and excluded the aforesaid 5 comparables. She has also placed reliance upon the various orders of the Tribuna…

Sharp Software Development India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, appeal of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1819/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. L. Sowmya Achar, Addl. CIT

M/S. Teradata India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 1833/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiteradata India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 304, 3Rd Floor, Tower- Circle-Ii, 4A, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aacct6715A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar

Section 10ASection 143(3)(ii)Section 92C

…I of PB). b. The TPO has rejected the use of multiple year data of comparables in view of the various decisions of the Court including of the jurisdictional High Court given in case of Chrys capital Investment Advisors [2015] 56 taxmann.com 417 (Delhi) (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del) wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that while determining comparability of transactions, multiple year data can only be included in manner provided in rule 10B(4) and, thus, it is not open to the assessee to rely upon previous year's data as a general rule. c. The assessee has submitted for the exclusion of certain comparables adopted by th…

Sh. Evalueserve.Com Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4001/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishievalueserve.Com Private Vs. Ito, Ltd, Ward-11(2), 701, Guru Apartments, New Delhi Sector-14, Rohni, New Delhi Pan: Aaace8014F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: i. Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv ii. Sh. Sumit Lal ChandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)(ii)Section 234BSection 271Section 92Section 92C

…cannot be included on this ground alone they should be included in the final list of comparables. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in case of Chrys capital investment advisers India private limited versus DCIT 376 ITR 183. He further submitted that if one extreme is excluded i.e. loss- making companies are excluded then on the same base, another extreme profit-making company should also be excluded. E Valueserve.com Pvt Ltd V ITO ITA 4001/del/2013 AY 2006-07 23. With respect to the working capital adjustment, He submitted that working capital adjustment should b…

Willis Processing Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai

ITA 6877/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 6877/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Sh. R.R Vora and Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Sh. Debashis Chanda

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(3)Section 92C(4)

…P a g e | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 6877/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s Willis Processing Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. ACIT (OSD) - 2(3), Plant No.6, Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co. Compound, Aaykar Bhawan, बिधम/ Vs. Pirojshnagar, L.B.S Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 079. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABFL2160M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) : अपीलाथी कीओर से / Appellant by : Sh. R.R Vora and Nikhil Tiwari. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent by : S…

Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Progressive Tools & Components Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2005-06 Addl. Cit, Vs. Progressive Tools & Range-2, Components Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad. 8/3A, Site-Iv, Indl. Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. Pan : Aachp2255L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Shri Ramanjaneyulu, Sr. DR

…ch higher turnover. The view adopted by the ld. CIT(A), in our considered opinion, cannot be countenanced because of the direct judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del) in which it has been held that high or low turnover is not a criteria for excluding an otherwise comparable company. Logically also, when average PLI of comparables, consisting of companies having similar or high or low turnover, is considered for benchmarking, effect of different volumes of turnover is automatically ironed out. In view of…

M/S Logitech Engineering & Design India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 287/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Vishal Kalsa, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Preeti Garg, CIT-DR

…ibunal in the case of Obopay Mobile It(tp)a.287 & 127/Bang/2015 Page - 12 Technolgy 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 the basis of…

M/S. St-Ericsson India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1672/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri S.D. Kapila, R.R. Maurya &For Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Senior DR

Section 143Section 144C

…tled 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…

Asb International Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ACIT Cir-1, Kalyan

ITA 2137/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Karshima Phatarphekar & Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 92

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ “ “ “ केकेकेके” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, , , , शि"जीत डे एवं शि"जीत डे शि"जीत डे, "याियक शि"जीत डे "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Saktijit Dey,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA(TP)/No.2137/Mum/2016 : िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year…

M/S. Vaildor Capital India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1979/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. S.D. Kapila, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. T.M. Shivakumar, CIT/DR

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

…O about comparability of FAR of these comparables. Needless to say that request for admission of addition ground is accepted/allowed with respect to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Chryscapital investment Advertisements (India) Pvt. Ltd., 376 ITR 183 & Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 240/Del./2015 (Delhi Tribunal). It would also be the obligation of the assessee to justify the exclusion of above two comparables originally and now required to include them without there being 8 ITA No.1979/Del./2014 any change in the facts and circumstances. With that view, we have adjudicated t…

M/S. Steria India Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 107/DEL/2016[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2016

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2010-11 Steria India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, (Earlier Known As Xansa (India) Ltd.), Circle-24(2), Sea View Special Economic Zone, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Building No.4, Plot No.20 & 21, New Delhi. Sector-135, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. Pan: Aaacx0385L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 195Section 40

…ceding year. Though simplicitor high or low turnover cannot be a criteria for excluding a company from the list of comparables as has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del), but the persistent losses coupled with declining turnover over the period indicate abnormal financial circumstances, which render it non-comparable and 32 justify the exclusion of such a company from the list of comparables. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that the TPO was right in excluding this company from the list of comp…

Aithent Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6446/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 5Section 92B(1)Section 92F

…tes of the whole lot of 15 functionally similar companies of different sizes, viz., some having higher while some others having lower turnover vis-à-vis the assessee, irons out the effect of such differences. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High vs. DCIT (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del) has held that high profit/turnover cannot be a criteria to exclude an otherwise comparable company. This issue being no more res integra, does not deserve the acceptance by us of the argument advanced on behalf of the assessee. We, therefore, hold that the TPO was justified in applying this filter. (ii) Companies who have less than 25%…

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

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands disposed off accordingly

ITA 100/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Pandwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri N C Swain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 36Section 92C

…12 I.T.A.No.100/Del/2011 comparables for the purposes of determining the arms length price. Ld. DR placed his reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chrys Capital Investment Advisers (India) (P) Ltd vs. DCIT, reported in (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 417, wherein it has been held that; “…… mere fact that an entity makes high/extremely high profits/losses does not, ipso facto, lead to its exclusion from list of comparables for the purposes of determination of a LP as in such circumstances and enquiry under rule 10 B (3) ought to be carried out to data mine as to whether material difference…

DCIT vs. M/S Netapp (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 881/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II

Section 1O

…evenue is rejected. 8. Regarding ground no.3 of the revenue’s appeal, ld. DR of the revenue placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of M/s Chryscapital Investment Advisors (Ind.) Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT as reported in 376 ITR 183. In particular, our attention was drawn to para-33 of this judgment. 9. The ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). He also submitted a chart regarding exclusion of various comparables including some comparables which are being objected to by the revenue as per ground no.2 of this appeal such as M/s Celestial Labs Ltd.,…

M/S. Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 440/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Shri Gautam SwarupFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…nternational transaction between two AEs having regard to its ALP and the same is required to be strictly adhered to in the manner as prescribed. 12. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in ChrysCapital Investment Advisors (India) P. Ltd. VS. DCIT (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del) has held that : `Thus, the Courts are primarily bound by the law on the subject in India; if the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no question of resorting to extrinsic sources. The only rider is that if the terms of such conventions or treaties are similar to the law applicable in India, courts may consider precedents in that regard…

Atos India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1467/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Dcit 8(1) Godrej & Boyce Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli(W) Mumbai Mumbai-400079 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaaco2461J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Kanchan Kaushal Shri Dhanesh Bafna Shri Ali Asgar Rampurwala (Ar) Shri N.K. Chand (Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / 05/04/2016 Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja (): This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 16.01.2014 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To The Directions Given By The Dispute Resolution Panel (In Short

Section 10A

…ITAT in the case of Willis Processing dated 01.03.2013 in support of his proposition that Infosys Ltd. should not be excluded. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT 376 ITR 183. 5.2. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities and submissions made by both the sides before us. The undisputed facts before us are that during the year under consideration turnover of the assessee of software development segment was Rs.423.71 crores and SIPL segment was Rs.2.10 crores as against turnover of Rs.20,264 crores of th…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Globe Op Financial Services (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1610/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra

Section 92C

…the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in referring to the data relating to subsequent assessment years. However, on a perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Chrys Capital Investment Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2011] 376 ITR 183 (Del.) relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative, it is noticed, the Hon'ble High Court referring to OECD guidelines stating that loss making comparables specifying comparability analysis should not be rejected on the basis that they suffered loss as well as provisions contained under rule 10B(2) and 10B(3), observed, there is nothing…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Sopra India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4190/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Agarwal, ITP

Section 144C

…be considered for framing final set of comparables for T.P. adjustment. The ld. DR pointed out that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case Chryscapital Investment Advisors [India] [P] Ltd Vs. DCIT reported at [2015] 56 Taxmann.com 417 [Delhi], mere fact that entity makes high/extremely high profits/losses does not ipso facto lead to its exclusion from the list of comparables for the purposes of determination of ALP. The ld. DR placing reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ST Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT 4 reported a…

Asahi Glass Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4242/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri C.M. Garg, Jm Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…t criteria for inclusion or exclusion of a company is concerned, we find that this issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del) in which it has been held that high/low profit and high/low turnover cannot be a ground to exclude an otherwise comparable company. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 279 CTR 441 (Del). The reliance of the ld. DR on a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Cou…

Headstrong Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 714/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv. , ShFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT,DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154

…gument is, therefore, rejected. 30.3. In so far as the objection of the ld. AR about the high profit/high turnover of this company is concerned, we find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ChrysCapital Investment Advisors (India) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Del) has held that the mere fact that an entity makes high/extremely high profits/losses does not, ipso facto, lead to its exclusion from the list of comparables for the purposes of determination of ALP. Similar view has been taken in Rampgreen 47 Headstrong Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 533 (Del) to the…