CIT v. Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd.

381 ITR 216High Court2016#1650 most cited

What is CIT v. Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Companies with significantly higher turnover, indicating differing functional and risk profiles, are not comparable for transfer pricing benchmarking. Such large companies must be excluded from the list of comparables when benchmarking against an assessee with a much smaller turnover.

69

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd. · Pentair Water India · transfer pricing · comparable companies · turnover filter · exclusion of comparables · functional risk profile · Section 92C(2) · benchmarking · transactional net margin method

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd.

M/S Software Paradigms Infotech Private Limited, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mysore

ITA 2828/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2828/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Software Paradigms The Assistant Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 316-318, Spi City, Income Tax, Hebbal Industrial Area, Circle – 1 (1), Mysuru – 570016. Mysuru. Vs. Pan: Aalcs7583C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 24.10.2017 Passed By The Acit, Circle – 1 (1), Mysuru U/S. 143(3) R.W. 92Ca R.W. 144C(5) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Orders Of The Tpo / Drp / Assessing Officer In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself To Be Assessed On A Total Income Of Rs. 10,50,75,429/- As Against Income Of Rs. 6,77,58,220/- As Declared By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…the case. b) Without prejudice, the authorities below ought to have applied the turnover filter of Rs.1 crore to Rs.200 crores for selection of comparables as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 381 ITR 216. 9. The authorities below erred in selecting external comparables over internal comparables for ITES segment on the facts of the case. Page 3 of 24 IT(TP)A No. 2828/Bang/2017 10. a) The working capital adjustment of 2.58% in SDS segment made to the ALP margin is very low and needs to be substantially enhanced on the facts of the case. b) The wor…

DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

ITA 5801/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Addl Cit (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Range-4, Unitech Trade Centre, New Delhi Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl Cit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Special Range-4, International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Circle-11(1), International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Dcit, (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Unitech Circle-11(1), Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block New Delhi C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deeraj Kr. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 10ASection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…he turnover of the assessee which is just Rs 30.81 crores and both are enjoying the brand value of respective group companies. The decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT V Pentair Water Limited in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 180 (Bombay)/[2016] 381 ITR 216 (Bom) as well as the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd. [2013] 219 Taxman 26/36 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi) also supports the view In view of this we direct the learned AO/TPO to exclude the above two comparable companies. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of assessee is allowed.…

Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

ITA 5770/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Addl Cit (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Range-4, Unitech Trade Centre, New Delhi Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl Cit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Special Range-4, International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Circle-11(1), International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Dcit, (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Unitech Circle-11(1), Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block New Delhi C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deeraj Kr. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 10ASection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…he turnover of the assessee which is just Rs 30.81 crores and both are enjoying the brand value of respective group companies. The decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT V Pentair Water Limited in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 180 (Bombay)/[2016] 381 ITR 216 (Bom) as well as the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd. [2013] 219 Taxman 26/36 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi) also supports the view In view of this we direct the learned AO/TPO to exclude the above two comparable companies. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of assessee is allowed.…

M/S. Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT (Inv.), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

ITA 6558/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Addl Cit (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Range-4, Unitech Trade Centre, New Delhi Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl Cit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Special Range-4, International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Circle-11(1), International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Dcit, (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Unitech Circle-11(1), Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block New Delhi C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deeraj Kr. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 10ASection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…he turnover of the assessee which is just Rs 30.81 crores and both are enjoying the brand value of respective group companies. The decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT V Pentair Water Limited in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 180 (Bombay)/[2016] 381 ITR 216 (Bom) as well as the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd. [2013] 219 Taxman 26/36 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi) also supports the view In view of this we direct the learned AO/TPO to exclude the above two comparable companies. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of assessee is allowed.…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Honeywell International (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

ITA 6552/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Addl Cit (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Range-4, Unitech Trade Centre, New Delhi Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl Cit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Special Range-4, International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Honeywell Circle-11(1), International (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 1St Floor, Unitech Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Dcit, (India) Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Unitech Circle-11(1), Trade Centre, Sector-43, Block New Delhi C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurgaon Pan: Aanca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deeraj Kr. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 10ASection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…he turnover of the assessee which is just Rs 30.81 crores and both are enjoying the brand value of respective group companies. The decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT V Pentair Water Limited in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 180 (Bombay)/[2016] 381 ITR 216 (Bom) as well as the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd. [2013] 219 Taxman 26/36 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi) also supports the view In view of this we direct the learned AO/TPO to exclude the above two comparable companies. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of assessee is allowed.…

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

…y observing that their turnover was several times higher vis-à-vis assessee company. In this regard, we find that the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) echoes with that of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 216 (Bom), in which the view of the Tribunal in excluding certain companies on the basis of higher turnover has been approved by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court. Since the facts of the instant case are similar in as much as the TPO included these four companies in the list of comparables, which were having their respective turnovers several times more…

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

…y observing that their turnover was several times higher vis-à-vis assessee company. In this regard, we find that the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) echoes with that of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 216 (Bom), in which the view of the Tribunal in excluding certain companies on the basis of higher turnover has been approved by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court. Since the facts of the instant case are similar in as much as the TPO included these four companies in the list of comparables, which were having their respective turnovers several times more…

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

…y observing that their turnover was several times higher vis-à-vis assessee company. In this regard, we find that the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) echoes with that of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 216 (Bom), in which the view of the Tribunal in excluding certain companies on the basis of higher turnover has been approved by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court. Since the facts of the instant case are similar in as much as the TPO included these four companies in the list of comparables, which were having their respective turnovers several times more…