CIT v. Mercer Consulting (India) P. Ltd.

390 ITR 615High Court2017#3384 most cited

What is CIT v. Mercer Consulting (India) P. Ltd. authority for?

A company's financial year ending differing from the assessment year is a valid ground for rejecting it as a comparable in transfer pricing analysis.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mercer Consulting (India) P. Ltd. · 390 ITR 615 · comparable company · financial year ending · transfer pricing

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 144c(8)installation pesafe harbour rulesconvertible foreign exchangemultiple year datasection 14a disallowancesafe harbourfar analysisr&d expendituresection 92c(2)working capital adjustmentsection 92f

Judgments citing CIT v. Mercer Consulting (India) P. Ltd.

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 319/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

…of this company as a comparable. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions wherein inclusion of R Systems has been upheld: - Mercer Consulting (India) (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT: [2014] 150 ITD 1 (Delhi - Trib.) - affirmed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in [2017 390 ITR 615 - Business Process Outsourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT: ITA No. 238/Bang/2016 - Baxter India (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT: [2017] 85 taxmann.com 285 (Delhi - Trib.) - Exevo India (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO: [2016] 72 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi - Trib.) - CIT vs McKinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd.: (ITA 217/Del/2014) 15.8. The Ld. DR submitted that this company…

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. The ACIT-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 292/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

…of this company as a comparable. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions wherein inclusion of R Systems has been upheld: - Mercer Consulting (India) (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT: [2014] 150 ITD 1 (Delhi - Trib.) - affirmed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in [2017 390 ITR 615 - Business Process Outsourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT: ITA No. 238/Bang/2016 - Baxter India (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT: [2017] 85 taxmann.com 285 (Delhi - Trib.) - Exevo India (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO: [2016] 72 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi - Trib.) - CIT vs McKinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd.: (ITA 217/Del/2014) 15.8. The Ld. DR submitted that this company…

M/S. Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Indore vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 179/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

…of this company as a comparable. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions wherein inclusion of R Systems has been upheld: - Mercer Consulting (India) (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT: [2014] 150 ITD 1 (Delhi - Trib.) - affirmed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in [2017 390 ITR 615 - Business Process Outsourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT: ITA No. 238/Bang/2016 - Baxter India (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT: [2017] 85 taxmann.com 285 (Delhi - Trib.) - Exevo India (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO: [2016] 72 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi - Trib.) - CIT vs McKinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd.: (ITA 217/Del/2014) 15.8. The Ld. DR submitted that this company…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Vcostomer Services India Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi

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

ITA 1618/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…gn Systems (I) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [(2018) 93 taxmann.com 227 (Delhi Trib.)] 13 Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1404 & 1618/Del/2016 (iii) Techbooks International (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [(2015) 63 taxmann.com 14 (Del.)] (iv) CIT Vs. Mercer Consulting (India) (P.) Ltd. [(2016) 390 ITR 615 (P & H)]. 22. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the DRP/TPO. 23. Heard rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below. The TPO rejected this company as comparable on the ground that this company has different financial year ending. The TPO also observed that the financial data of this company is available for a…

M/S. Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1404/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…gn Systems (I) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [(2018) 93 taxmann.com 227 (Delhi Trib.)] 13 Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1404 & 1618/Del/2016 (iii) Techbooks International (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [(2015) 63 taxmann.com 14 (Del.)] (iv) CIT Vs. Mercer Consulting (India) (P.) Ltd. [(2016) 390 ITR 615 (P & H)]. 22. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the DRP/TPO. 23. Heard rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below. The TPO rejected this company as comparable on the ground that this company has different financial year ending. The TPO also observed that the financial data of this company is available for a…

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

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

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80G

…ancial year 14 IT(TP)A No. 268/Bang/2021 M/s. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. ending. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Mercer Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. [2017] (390 ITR 615). 25. The learned D.R. submitted that the ratio laid down in the case of Mercer Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) cannot be applied as it is since if there are enough number of comparables are available then the inclusion by extrapolating the data for the financial year need not entertained. 26. We have heard the rival contentions and perused…

M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment India P. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

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

ITA 584/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle 9, Vs. M/S. Hyundai Construction Pune Equipment India Private Limited Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. Acit, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pa N: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp :

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH ―C‖, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ACIT, Circle 9, Vs. M/s. Hyundai Construction Pune Equipment India Private Limited Plot No.A-2, Chakan MIDC, Phase-II, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 PAN: AABCH8756Q Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. ACIT, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan MIDC, Phase-II, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalum…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 537/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle 9, Vs. M/S. Hyundai Construction Pune Equipment India Private Limited Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. Acit, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pa N: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp :

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH ―C‖, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ACIT, Circle 9, Vs. M/s. Hyundai Construction Pune Equipment India Private Limited Plot No.A-2, Chakan MIDC, Phase-II, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalumbre, Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 PAN: AABCH8756Q Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. ACIT, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan MIDC, Phase-II, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Village- Khalum…

M/S. Hyundai Consttruction Equipment India Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 9, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2453/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. Acit, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan Midc, Phase-Ii, Khalumbre, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Chakan, Taluka-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan: Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH ―C‖, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Hyundai Construction Equipment Vs. ACIT, Circle 9, India Private Limited Pune Plot No.A-2, Chakan MIDC, Phase-II, Khalumbre, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Chakan, Taluka-Khed, Pune – 410501 PAN: AABCH8756Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri M.P. Lohia Revenue by Shri Navin Gupta, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 24-06-2021 Date of pronouncement 29-06-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is dir…

Barclays Shared Services Private Limited(Merged With Barclays Technology Centre India Pvt Ltd), Pune vs. ACIT, Company Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 267/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Barclays Shared Services Private Vs. Acit, Limited (Merged With Barclays Company Circle- Technology Centre India Private Limited 1(2), Chennai Now Known As Barclays Global Service Centre Private Limited, Ground Floor, Wing-3, Cluster A, Eon Free Zone, Midc Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune, Maharashtra 411014 Pan :Aadcr6251L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg Date Of Hearing 08-03-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09-03-2021 आदेश / Order

Section 10ASection 115J

…duction u/s.10A, the amount of freight, telecommunication charges and insurance expenses should be excluded from both the `Export turnover” and `Total turnover’. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Mercer Consulting (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 390 ITR 615 (P&H) has also held that telecommunication charges should be excluded from both the `Export turnover’ and also the `Total turnover’ in the formula while computing deduction u/ss.10A/10AA. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the amount of expenses incurred by the assessee in foreign exchange should be reduced from both the `Export tur…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 976/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &
Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…ision of TPO/DRP is not justified in including Genesys International Corporation Ltd. in set of comparables after placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT, Faridabad vs. Mercer Consulting (India) (P) Ltd. 390 ITR 615. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. With the assistance of ld. representatives, we have gone through the above referred decision in the case of Mercer Consulting (India) Ltd. wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana held in reference to Genesys Industrial Corporation Ltd. that it provides a full range of geospatial…

Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1042/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &
Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…ision of TPO/DRP is not justified in including Genesys International Corporation Ltd. in set of comparables after placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT, Faridabad vs. Mercer Consulting (India) (P) Ltd. 390 ITR 615. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. With the assistance of ld. representatives, we have gone through the above referred decision in the case of Mercer Consulting (India) Ltd. wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana held in reference to Genesys Industrial Corporation Ltd. that it provides a full range of geospatial…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

ITA/247/2019HC Delhi04 Jan 2021
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 260A

…Xchanging Technology Services India Pvt Ltd [TS-446-HC-20l 6(DEL)-TP}. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd [TS-1007- HC-2016(BOM)-TP} and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Mercer Consulting (India) P. Ltd. (2017) 390 ITR 615 (P&H) have 2021:DHC:11-DB ITA 247/2019 and connected matters Page 7 of 17 also approved similar view. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any substance in the preliminary objection taken by the ld. DR. 44. Coming to the comparability or otherwise of this company, we find from its Profit & Loss Account that its inc…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

ITA/652/2019HC Delhi04 Jan 2021
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 260A

…Xchanging Technology Services India Pvt Ltd [TS-446-HC-20l 6(DEL)-TP}. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd [TS-1007- HC-2016(BOM)-TP} and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Mercer Consulting (India) P. Ltd. (2017) 390 ITR 615 (P&H) have 2021:DHC:11-DB ITA 247/2019 and connected matters Page 7 of 17 also approved similar view. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any substance in the preliminary objection taken by the ld. DR. 44. Coming to the comparability or otherwise of this company, we find from its Profit & Loss Account that its inc…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

ITA/710/2019HC Delhi04 Jan 2021
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 260A

…Xchanging Technology Services India Pvt Ltd [TS-446-HC-20l 6(DEL)-TP}. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd [TS-1007- HC-2016(BOM)-TP} and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Mercer Consulting (India) P. Ltd. (2017) 390 ITR 615 (P&H) have 2021:DHC:11-DB ITA 247/2019 and connected matters Page 7 of 17 also approved similar view. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any substance in the preliminary objection taken by the ld. DR. 44. Coming to the comparability or otherwise of this company, we find from its Profit & Loss Account that its inc…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

ITA/357/2019HC Delhi04 Jan 2021
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 260A

…Xchanging Technology Services India Pvt Ltd [TS-446-HC-20l 6(DEL)-TP}. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd [TS-1007- HC-2016(BOM)-TP} and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Mercer Consulting (India) P. Ltd. (2017) 390 ITR 615 (P&H) have 2021:DHC:11-DB ITA 247/2019 and connected matters Page 7 of 17 also approved similar view. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any substance in the preliminary objection taken by the ld. DR. 44. Coming to the comparability or otherwise of this company, we find from its Profit & Loss Account that its inc…

Empower Research Knowledge Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 207/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 92C(2)

…1 IT (TP)A No. 171/Bang/2015 & 207/Bang/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(TP) A No. 171/BANG/2015 (A.Y 2010-11) I.T.(TP) A No. 207/BANG/2016 (A.Y 2011-12) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Genpact India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of (Earlier known as Empower Income-tax Research knowledge Services Pvt. Circle-3(1)(2), Ltd.) Delhi Information Bangalore Technology Park, Shastri Park, New Delhi-110053 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv & Sh. S. S.…

Empower Research Knowledge Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 171/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 92C(2)

…1 IT (TP)A No. 171/Bang/2015 & 207/Bang/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(TP) A No. 171/BANG/2015 (A.Y 2010-11) I.T.(TP) A No. 207/BANG/2016 (A.Y 2011-12) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Genpact India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of (Earlier known as Empower Income-tax Research knowledge Services Pvt. Circle-3(1)(2), Ltd.) Delhi Information Bangalore Technology Park, Shastri Park, New Delhi-110053 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv & Sh. S. S.…

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

ITA 2388/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: S/Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234bSection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

…c domain, there was no reason with the TPO/DRP to reject this comparable. 41. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in CIT vs. Mercer Consulting (India) (P) Ltd. (2014) 150 ITD 1 (Del.-Trib.), which is affirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in (2017) 390 ITR 615 (P&H), held that merely on the ground that company has a different financial year cannot be rejected as a comparable. 42. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that this comparable is remitted back to the TPO to decide afresh in view of the law laid down, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the ta…

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

ITA 878/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2020AY 2005-06

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

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

…upra) and held that Infosys BPO was rightly excluded as not being a comparable company. Our attention was also drawn by him to a decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Mercer Consulting (I) (P) Ltd. [2016] 76 taxmann.com 153/390 ITR 615 wherein the Hon'ble Court held that a giant company cannot be compared with a company which was a captive service provided assuming limited risks. 17.6 As far as the decisions of the Tribunal rendered on the application of turnover filter that are contrary to the decision rendered in the case IT(TP)A Nos.349 & 878/Bang/2014 M/s. Mindtree Ltd., B…

CIT v. Mercer Consulting (India) P. Ltd. (390 ITR 615) — Cited in 35 Judgments | BharatTax