CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd.

36 Taxmann.com 289High Court2013#568 most cited

What is CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The Delhi High Court holds that Infosys Ltd. is not comparable to a captive software development service provider for transfer pricing analysis, given its huge turnover, high profit margins, ownership of intangible intellectual property rights, branded products, and differing risk profile.

171

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd. · Agnity India Technologies · transfer pricing · comparable companies · Infosys comparability · captive service provider · software development · intangible intellectual property rights · turnover filter · risk profile · functional comparability · associated enterprises

Also reported as

219 Taxmann 2693 DTR 375

Sections most often in play

Section 10B(3)Section 10(B)(2)Section 10B(2)(a)Section 12(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

captive service providerworking capital adjustmentfar analysisrelated party transactioncomparable companiestested partytransactional net margin methodmost appropriate methodintangible assetsassociated enterprisessection 10atnmm

Judgments citing CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd.

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

ITA 349/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Jaya Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
Section 10A

…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…

Infor (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and stay application is dismissed

ITA 1689/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1689/Hyd/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा /Asst. Year: 2015-16) M/S. Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Block-B, Q-City, Survey No. 109, 110, Hyderabad. 111/2, Nanakramguda (Vs.), Serilingampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacb 6197 Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent Stay Application No.98/Hyd/2020 (Arsing Out Of I.T.A. No.1689/Hyd/2019) (धििाारण वर्ा /Asst. Year: 2015-16) M/S. Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Acit, Circle-2(1), Block-B, Q-City, Survey No. 109, 110, Hyderabad. 111/2, Nanakramguda (Vs.), Serilingampally (M), R.R. District, Hyderabad (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sunil M. Lala, Ar. प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Srinivas Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2020

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 143(3)

…he said companies, they should not be excluded from the final list of comparables. 7.6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agnity India Technologies (P) Ltd(2013) 36 Taxmann.com 289 (Delhi H.C) has held Infosys Ltd as not comparable as it is a giant company in the area of development of software. The same ratio applied to both L&T and Mindtree as well. Thus, we direct exclusion of all these three companies on account of huge turnover.” 6.2.1. Both the Ld.AR and the Ld.DR have agreed that there is no change in the fact…

M/S Sonus Networks India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 396/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)

…IT(TP)A No.396/Bang/2019 M/s. Sonus Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.396/Bang/2019 AssessmentYear:2009-10 M/s. Sonus Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Swarna Latha P V, Commissioner of 2nd Floor Delta Block Income-tax Embassy Tech Square Circle-6(1)(2) Kadubeesenahalli Village Vs. Bengaluru Outer Ring Road, Varthur Hobli Bengaluru-560 103 PAN NO :AALCS5706P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar,…

M/S Enstage Software Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 583/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.583/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Enstage Software Pvt. The Income-tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-2(1)(4), No.25, 1st Floor, East Wing, Bengaluru. Shankaranarayana Bldg. 1, Vs. M.G Road, Bengaluru. PAN – AAACE 9963 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Narendra Jain, C.A Revenue by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 10-09-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 25-09-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by…

Midland Credit Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 6, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part on the grounds argued before us whereas the appeal of the revenue stands

ITA 3892/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT - DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 92C

…ment of software and it assumes all risks leading to higher profit. This company also has substantial intangibles. This company has also been included by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Agnity India Technologies Private Limited (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 289 and further by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Avaya India Private Limited [Supra]. In the case of Cadence Design Sstems India Pvt Ltd 333 of 2019, this company has been excluded from the final set of comparables in ITES segment. Respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court decision we decline to interfere with the…

Addl.CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Midland Credit Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part on the grounds argued before us whereas the appeal of the revenue stands

ITA 3765/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT - DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 92C

…ment of software and it assumes all risks leading to higher profit. This company also has substantial intangibles. This company has also been included by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Agnity India Technologies Private Limited (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 289 and further by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Avaya India Private Limited [Supra]. In the case of Cadence Design Sstems India Pvt Ltd 333 of 2019, this company has been excluded from the final set of comparables in ITES segment. Respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court decision we decline to interfere with the…

M/S Ims Health Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 490/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.490/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.490/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s IMS Health Analytics The Asst. Commissioner of Services Pvt. Ltd., (IMS Income Tax, Health Technology Circle-3(1)(1), Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Bengaluru. merged with M/s IMS Health Analytics Services Pvt. Ltd.,) Embassy Tech Square, Omega, Embassy Techsquare, Marathahalli, Sarjapur Ring Road, Kadubeesanahalli, Bengaluru-560 103. PAN : AABCD 9297 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R Vasudevan, Advoca…

Smart Cube India Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4607/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)

…with the tested company, which could be a capital service provider without much intangible and risks. 25. In this context it requires to be noted that the ITAT also referred to the decision of this Court CIT v. Agnity India Technologies Private Limited (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 289. 26. The Court may also note that the Karnataka High Court has in PCIT v. Softbrands (2018) 406 ITR 513 (Kar) noted as under: "48. The Tribunal of course is expected to act fairly, reasonably and rationally and should scrupulously avoid perversity in their Orders. It should reflect due application of mind when they assign reasons for retur…

Smart Cube India Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1178/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)

…with the tested company, which could be a capital service provider without much intangible and risks. 25. In this context it requires to be noted that the ITAT also referred to the decision of this Court CIT v. Agnity India Technologies Private Limited (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 289. 26. The Court may also note that the Karnataka High Court has in PCIT v. Softbrands (2018) 406 ITR 513 (Kar) noted as under: "48. The Tribunal of course is expected to act fairly, reasonably and rationally and should scrupulously avoid perversity in their Orders. It should reflect due application of mind when they assign reasons for retur…

United Health Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 473/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-2 : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Court Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs DCIT, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly known as United Health CR Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11th Floor, Tower A, DLF Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. PAN: AADCA6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited CR Building, (Formerly known as United Health New Delhi Group In…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S United Health Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 193/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-2 : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Court Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs DCIT, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly known as United Health CR Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11th Floor, Tower A, DLF Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. PAN: AADCA6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited CR Building, (Formerly known as United Health New Delhi Group In…

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

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

ITA 3865/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…s AE alone without acquiring any intellectual property rights in the work done by it in the development of software. The Hon’ble Delhi 31 ITA NO. 5924/Del/2012 (Giesecke&Devrient India Pvt. Ltd.) High Court in CIT vs. Agnity India Technologies (P) Ltd. (2013) 219 Taxmann 26 (Del) considered the giantness of Infosys Ltd., in terms of risk profile, nature of services, number of employees, ownership of branded products and brand related profits, etc. in comparison with such factors prevailing in the case of Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd., being, a captive unit providing software development services without hav…

Sungard Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, cross appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1379/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos. 1041 & 1379/Bang/2011 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2005-06 M/S. FIS Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner [formerly known as Sungard of Income-tax, Solutions(India) Pvt. Ltd.], Circle – 12(3), Upper Ground Floor to 7th Floor, Bangalore. West End Centre One, Survey No.169/1, Sector II, Aundh, Pune – 411 007. PAN: AABCE 7476K APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No. 1106/Bang/2011 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Vs…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sungard Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, cross appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1106/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos. 1041 & 1379/Bang/2011 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2005-06 M/S. FIS Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner [formerly known as Sungard of Income-tax, Solutions(India) Pvt. Ltd.], Circle – 12(3), Upper Ground Floor to 7th Floor, Bangalore. West End Centre One, Survey No.169/1, Sector II, Aundh, Pune – 411 007. PAN: AABCE 7476K APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No. 1106/Bang/2011 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Vs…

Sungard Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, cross appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1041/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos. 1041 & 1379/Bang/2011 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2005-06 M/S. FIS Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner [formerly known as Sungard of Income-tax, Solutions(India) Pvt. Ltd.], Circle – 12(3), Upper Ground Floor to 7th Floor, Bangalore. West End Centre One, Survey No.169/1, Sector II, Aundh, Pune – 411 007. PAN: AABCE 7476K APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No. 1106/Bang/2011 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Vs…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. E-Gain Communication Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 535/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Egain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, The Circle-1(2), Pune Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Egain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, Circle-1(2), Pune The Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Egain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, The Circle-1(2), Pune Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Date Of Hearing 10-02-2020 Date Of Pronouncement 14-02-2020 आदेश / Order

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 eGain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT Office No.702, 7th Floor, B-1, The Circle-1(2), Pune Cerebrum IT Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 PAN : AAACN9946R Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT Vs. eGain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Office No.702, 7th Floor, B-1, Circle-1(2), Pune The Cerebrum IT Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 PAN : AAACN9946R Appellant Respondent निर्ध…

Egain Communications Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 511/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Egain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, The Circle-1(2), Pune Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Egain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, Circle-1(2), Pune The Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Egain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, The Circle-1(2), Pune Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Date Of Hearing 10-02-2020 Date Of Pronouncement 14-02-2020 आदेश / Order

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 eGain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT Office No.702, 7th Floor, B-1, The Circle-1(2), Pune Cerebrum IT Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 PAN : AAACN9946R Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT Vs. eGain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Office No.702, 7th Floor, B-1, Circle-1(2), Pune The Cerebrum IT Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 PAN : AAACN9946R Appellant Respondent निर्ध…

Egain Communications Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2777/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Egain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, The Circle-1(2), Pune Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Egain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, Circle-1(2), Pune The Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Egain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, The Circle-1(2), Pune Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Date Of Hearing 10-02-2020 Date Of Pronouncement 14-02-2020 आदेश / Order

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 eGain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT Office No.702, 7th Floor, B-1, The Circle-1(2), Pune Cerebrum IT Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 PAN : AAACN9946R Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT Vs. eGain Communications Pvt. Ltd., Office No.702, 7th Floor, B-1, Circle-1(2), Pune The Cerebrum IT Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 PAN : AAACN9946R Appellant Respondent निर्ध…

M/S.Cisco Video Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 184/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.184/Bang/2017 Assessment year: 2012-13 Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (formerly known as Cisco Video of Income Tax, Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.,) Circle 2(1)(1), Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, Bengaluru. Survey No.51-64/4, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. PAN: AACCN 1140K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Dat…

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

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

ITA 3131/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.3131/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Microsoft Research Lab India Pvt. Ltd., ‘Vigyan’, No.9, Lavelle Road, Bangalore. ….Appellant Pan Aaecm 2252R Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Pradeep Kumar,Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar,CIT (D.R)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 156Section 274Section 92C

…by Ld.TPO in finalist. It has been submitted that this comparable is not comparable due to high turnover and intangibles owned by this company. It has been submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Agnity India technologies reported in (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 289 has held this company to be bad comparable to a company which is captive service provider under the segment. It has been submitted that this company provides end to end business solutions that leverage technology to enable clients to enhance business performance. Ld. CIT DR placed reliance upon the order passed by authorities below. We hav…