Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT

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

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

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

…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…

Ansr Global Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.225/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Ansr Global Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Ground Floor, Block L1, Circle – 1(1)(1), Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bengaluru. Sez, Outer Ring Road, Nagwara, Bengaluru-560 045. Pan : Aaecn 7296 E Appellant Respondent

…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. Capco Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2436/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s. Capco Technologies Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, SJR I-Park, Ground Floor, Tower 2, Block Circle -2(1)(1), PHI, EPIP-Zone 1,Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. PAN : AADCC 4204 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 23.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 2…

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

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2482/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Radisys India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, 6Th Floor, Electra Wing B, Exora Business Park, Circle - 5(1)(1), Sarjapur, Bengaluru. Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccc 3169 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahaveer C Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022 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…

Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.178/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ajmera Aditya Summit, No.3D1, Ground Floor, Ward-1(1)(1), 7Th C Main Road, 3Rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 034. Pan : Aacca 5309 D Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.178/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Vs. ITO, Ajmera Aditya Summit, No.3D1, Ground Floor, Ward-1(1)(1), 7th C Main Road, 3rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 034. PAN : AACCA 5309 D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 03.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V V…

M/S. Atmecs Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Atmecs Technologies Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.301, M J Towers, H-No.8-2-698, Ward -1(1)(1), Road No.12, Bengaluru. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 034. Pan : Aamca 0792 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. P.V.S.S.Prasad, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Arunkumar, Cit(Tp-2)(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 30.3.2021 By The National E-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 Ay 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Associated Enterprises

…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.187/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Atmecs Technologies Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.301, M J Towers, H-No.8-2-698, Ward -1(1)(1), Road No.12, Bengaluru. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 034. PAN : AAMCA 0792 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. P.V.S.S.Prasad, CA Respondent by : Shri. Arunkumar, CIT(TP-2)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 14.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. V…

Capco Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru 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 B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.204/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Capco Technologies Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sjr I-Park, Ground Floor, Tower 2, Block Circle -2(1)(1), Phi, Ramagondanahalli, Whitefield S.O, Bengaluru. Bengaluru. Pan : Aadcc 4204 G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Srinivas T Bidari, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 26.04.2021 By The National E-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 Ay 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To Capco Group. The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Capco Belgium Bvba, Belgium. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee & Its It(Tp)A No.204/Bang/2021 Page 2 Of 27

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.204/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Capco Technologies Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, SJR i-Park, Ground Floor, Tower 2, Block Circle -2(1)(1), PHI, Ramagondanahalli, Whitefield S.O, Bengaluru. Bengaluru. PAN : AADCC 4204 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. Srinivas T Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 16.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 O R…

M/S. Aptean India Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2638/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Aptean India Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Formerly Aptean Software India Pvt. Ltd.,) Circle -1(1)(1), Level-5 (8Th Floor), Golden Heights, Bengaluru. No.1/2, 59Th C Cross, 4Th M Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 010. Pan : Aaccp 7154 M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Respondent By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.11.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 11.10.2017 Of Dcit, Circle 1(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called The ‘Act’) Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of 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 & Its Wholly Owned Holding Company Were Associated Enterprises

…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. Borqs Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

…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…

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

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

…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…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Aztec Soft Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

…IT(TP)A Nos.349 & 878/Bang/2014 M/s. Mindtree Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.349/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. Mindtree Limited (Previously known as M/s. Aztecsoft Limited now merged Deputy Commissioner of with M/s. Mindtree Limited) Income-tax Global Village, RVCE Post Vs. Circle-11(1) Mysore Road Bangalore Bangalore-560 059 PAN NO : AABCA2122R APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.878/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. Mindtree Limited (Previously known…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. Jivheshwara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

…IT(TP)A Nos.349 & 878/Bang/2014 M/s. Mindtree Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.349/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. Mindtree Limited (Previously known as M/s. Aztecsoft Limited now merged Deputy Commissioner of with M/s. Mindtree Limited) Income-tax Global Village, RVCE Post Vs. Circle-11(1) Mysore Road Bangalore Bangalore-560 059 PAN NO : AABCA2122R APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.878/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. Mindtree Limited (Previously known…

DCIT vs. M/S Logica Pvt. Ltd

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.612/Bang/2013 Assessment Year : 2005 – 06

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.612/Bang/2013 Assessment Year : 2005 – 06 The Dy. Commissioner of M/s CGI Information Income Tax, Systems and Management Circle-2(1)(1), Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru. Vs. (Successor in the interest of M/s Logica Pvt. Ltd.,), E City, Tower-2, 95/1 & 95/2, Electronic City Phase 1 (West), Bengaluru-560 100. PAN – AAACL 3330M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR) Respondent by : Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Date of Hearing…

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

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

…he case of Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA No.1519/Bang/2013 order dated 13.9.2017 after considering 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), that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is IT(TP)A No.59/Bang/2016 CO No.57/Bang/2016 Page 15 of 25 otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The Tribunal in the case of Dell International (supra) also took n…

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

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1086/Bang/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. CSG Systems International Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1)(1), [formerly known as M/s. Bangalore. Independent Technology Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.], Divyashree Tower, 4th Floor, No.55, Guruppanna Palya, Madivala Range, Bangalore – 560 029. PAN: AABCI 2954B APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO No.159/Bang/2015 [in IT(TP)A No.1086/Bang/2013] Assessment year : 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner o…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/ Sdell International Services India (P) Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.85/Bang/2014 & CO No.21/Bang/2016 [in IT(TP)A No.1838/Bang/2013] Assessment year : 2005-06 Dell International Services India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd., Income Tax, LTU, Divyashree Greens, No.12/1, Bangalore. 12/2A & 13/1A, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. PAN: AABCD 1741M APPELLANT / RESPONDENT CROSS OBJECTOR IT(TP)A Nos.1838/Bang/2013 & 1026/Bang/2014 Assessment year : 2005-06 The Joint Commissioner of Vs. Dell I…

JCIT vs. M/S Dell International Services India

In the result, IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.85/Bang/2014 & CO No.21/Bang/2016 [in IT(TP)A No.1838/Bang/2013] Assessment year : 2005-06 Dell International Services India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd., Income Tax, LTU, Divyashree Greens, No.12/1, Bangalore. 12/2A & 13/1A, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. PAN: AABCD 1741M APPELLANT / RESPONDENT CROSS OBJECTOR IT(TP)A Nos.1838/Bang/2013 & 1026/Bang/2014 Assessment year : 2005-06 The Joint Commissioner of Vs. Dell I…