Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT

Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.343/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Marvell India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Tower D, 10Th & 11Th Floors, Circle – 4(1)(2), Global Technoloyg Park, Marathahalli – Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaecm 5559 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mukesh Butani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 O R D E R Per George George K:

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.343/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Marvell India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Tower D, 10th and 11th Floors, Circle – 4(1)(2), Global Technoloyg Park, Marathahalli – Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. PAN : AAECM 5559 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Mukesh Butani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 10.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 O R D E R Per Geo…

Quest Global Engineering Services Private :Limited, Belagavi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Belagavi

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No.279/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18

…and therefore companies with high turnover should also be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The DRP primarily relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt.Ltd Vs. DCIT 82 Taxmann.com 167(Del), wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which is otherwise functionally comparable cannot be excluded only…

Aptean India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 422/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Aptean India Pvt. Ltd., 1/2, 8Th Floor, Level 5, The Assistant Golden Heights, Commissioner Of 59Th C Cross Road, Income Tax, 4Th M Block, Circle – 1(1)(1), Rajajinagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 010. Pan: Aaacc5890M Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-01-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25/03/2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another General Ground 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Final Assessment Order Passed By National Faceless

…and therefore companies with high turnover should also be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The DRP primarily relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt.Ltd Vs. DCIT 82 Taxmann.com 167(Del), wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on Page 13 IT(TP)A No. 422/Bang/2022 FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which is otherwise functionally…

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

…and therefore companies with high turnover should also be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The DRP primarily relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt.Ltd Vs. DCIT 82 Taxmann.com 167(Del), wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which is otherwise functionally comparable cannot be excluded only…

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

…and therefore companies with high turnover should also be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The DRP primarily relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt.Ltd Vs. DCIT 82 Taxmann.com 167(Del), wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which is otherwise functionally comparable cannot be excluded only…

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 ACIT, M/s. Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, RMZ Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. PAN : AABCT 0087 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Rajan Vora, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan, Vice President This appeal by…

M/S. Radisys India Limited (Formerly Known As Radisys India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

…and therefore companies with high turnover should also be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The DRP primarily relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt.Ltd Vs. DCIT 82 Taxmann.com 167(Del), wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which is otherwise functionally comparable cannot be excluded only…

M/S. Ig Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

…IT(TP)A No.204/Bang/2022 IG Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.204/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 IG Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Infinity Building Khata No.436, Survey No.13/1B, 12/1B, Challagatta Village ACIT Varthur Hobli, Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. Intermediate Ring Road Bengaluru Domlur Bengaluru 560 071 PAN NO : AABCH4430K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Nageswar Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R. Date of Hear…

Dover India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.460/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Dover India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Bagmane Laurel, 1St Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Bengaluru. C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aaaci 3920 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 29.03.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Providing Software Development Services (Swd Services), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee

…and therefore companies with high turnover should also be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The DRP primarily relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT 82 Taxmann.com 167(Del), wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on (functions performed, Assets employed, Risks Assumed) FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which is oth…

Mfx Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “B” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President and Ms. Padmavathy S., Accountant Member IT(TP)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/s. MFX Infotech Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, Circe - 4(1)(2) 3/3/2 Quess House, Sarjapur BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road Ambalipura Road 6th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Bellandur Gate Bengaluru 560102 PAN – AAJCM2530P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CA Revenue by: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 27/09/2022 Date of pronouncement: 21/10/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavat…

M/S. Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2577/Bang/2019 Assessment year : 2015-16 Marvell India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Tower D, 10th & 11th Floors, Commissioner of Income Global Technology Park, Tax, Marathahalli Sarjapur Outer Circle 4(1)(2), Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 103. PAN: AAECM 5559R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Mukesh Butani, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 11.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement…

Softlayer Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.265/Bang/2021 Assessment year : 2016-17 M/s Softlayer Technologies Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, No.12, Subramanya Arcade, Circle-6(1)(2), Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 029. PAN – AAVCS 4795 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A Revenue by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 12.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 10.10.2022 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accounta…

Ge Be Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.304/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Ge Be Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 3(1)(1), 60, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Bengaluru. Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacg 6714 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

…and therefore companies with high turnover should also be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The DRP primarily relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT 82 Taxmann.com 167(Del), wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which is otherwise functionally comparable cannot be excluded only…

Continuserve Softech India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.242/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Continuserve Softech India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Prathik Tech Park, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Bengaluru. Sy. No.93/1, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Hosur Road, Electronic City Phase 1, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaacc 8342 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

…and therefore companies with high turnover should also be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The DRP primarily relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt.Ltd Vs. DCIT 82 Taxmann.com 167(Del), wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which is otherwise functionally comparable cannot be excluded only…

Metric Stream Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

…and therefore companies with high turnover should also be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The DRP primarily relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT 82 Taxmann.com 167(Del), wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a IT(TP)A No.314/Bang/2022 Page 6 of 19 company which is otherwise functio…

M/S Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., No. 10 Brindavan, The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Yashoda Nagar Main Income Tax, Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Jakkur Plantation, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan: Aaacq0656P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahaveer C Jain, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 25/01/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., No. 10 Brindavan, The Deputy 3rd Floor, Commissioner of Yashoda Nagar Main Income Tax, Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Jakkur Plantation, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 064. PAN: AAACQ0656P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Mahaveer C Jain, CA : Shri Sumer Singh Meena CIT Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIA…

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.252/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mindteck India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A.M.R. Tech Park, Block 1, 3Rd Floor, Circle – 4(1)(1), No.664, 23/24, Hosur Main Road, Begur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 068. Pan : Aaach 1072 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

…and therefore companies with high turnover should also be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The DRP primarily relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt.Ltd Vs. DCIT 82 Taxmann.com 167(Del), wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company IT(TP)A No.252/Bang/2021 Page 10 of 33 which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which is otherwise functi…

Enstage Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.260/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Enstage Software Private Limited, Dcit (Exemptions), Vs. 16/1, Wings, 2Nd Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Cambridge Road, Halsuru, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aaace 9963 B Appellant Respondent

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.260/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Enstage Software Private Limited, DCIT (Exemptions), Vs. 16/1, WINGS, 2nd Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Cambridge Road, Halsuru, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. PAN : AAACE 9963 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 07.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Membe…

Galax E Solutions India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.389/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Galax E Solutions India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Unit No.4, 8Th Floor, Innovator Block, Itpl, Circle -3(1)(1), Bangalore, Whitefield Road, Bangalore 560 066. Pan : Aabcg 9007 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. C. J. Brito, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit, Dr. Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.5.2021 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The First Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Correctness Of Determination Of Arm’S Length Price In Respect Of An International Transaction U/S.92 Of The Act. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Wholly Owned Subsidiary Company In Usa. In Terms Of The Provisions

…and therefore companies with high turnover should also be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The DRP primarily relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt.Ltd Vs. DCIT 82 Taxmann.com 167(Del), wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which is otherwise functionally comparable cannot be excluded only…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Symbol Technologies India Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee and that by the Revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

…uld also be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The CIT(A) in rejecting the contention of the Assessee primarily relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt.Ltd Vs. DCIT 82 Taxmann.com 167(Del), wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The CIT(A) therefore held that ITA Nos.2057, 2221/Bang/2019 Page 11 of 31 a company which is otherwise…