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

Also reported as

69 Taxmann.com 180

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 10B(2)(a)Section 10B(3)Section 133(6)Section 144BSection 144C(3)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

captive service providersoftware technology parkmultiple year dataadvance pricing agreementresale price methodcost plus methodsection 92c(2)functional analysistransactional net margin methodinterest u/s 234cworking capital adjustmentsection 271(l)

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

Avaya India Private Limited, Maharashtra vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi

In the result, to sum up, ITA No

ITA 9131/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2012-13] & [Assessment Year: 2015-16]

For Appellant: A.Y 2012-13For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT - DR
Section 143(3)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13] & [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Avaya India Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Addl. C.I.T. Global Business Park Special Range - 1 M.G Road, Gurgaon New Delhi PAN: AAECA 3592 N [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 14.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2020 Assessee by : A.Y 2012-13 Shri Shashwat Bajpai, Adv Shri Sharad Agarwal, Adv A.Y 2015-16 Shri Ajit Korde, Adv Shri Vaibhav Agarwal, Adv Revenue by : Shri Surendra Pal, CIT -…

M/S. Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, to sum up, ITA No

ITA 1958/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2012-13] & [Assessment Year: 2015-16]

For Appellant: A.Y 2012-13For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT - DR
Section 143(3)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13] & [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Avaya India Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Addl. C.I.T. Global Business Park Special Range - 1 M.G Road, Gurgaon New Delhi PAN: AAECA 3592 N [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 14.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2020 Assessee by : A.Y 2012-13 Shri Shashwat Bajpai, Adv Shri Sharad Agarwal, Adv A.Y 2015-16 Shri Ajit Korde, Adv Shri Vaibhav Agarwal, Adv Revenue by : Shri Surendra Pal, CIT -…

Xoriant Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, -8(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4546/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhxoriant Solutions Pvt. Ltd Ito-8(3)(4) Windchester, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, High Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Corporate Park, Powai, Vs. Mumbai-4007076. Pan: Aaacx0146P Appellant Respondent Ito-11(3)(4) Xoriant Solutions Pvt. Ltd Room No. 429, 4Th Floor, Windchester, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, High Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Corporate Park, Powai, Vs. Mumbai-4007076. Pan: Aaacx0146P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pankaj R. Toprani With Miss. Krupa P. Toprani (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Udal Raj Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2020 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R. Toprani with Miss. Krupa P. Toprani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Udal Raj Singh (DR)
Section 254(1)

…n Communication Technologies Ltd 26.50 18 M/s. Cornpucom Software Ltd. (Segmental) 94.21 18 M/s. KALS Information Systems Ltd. 34.31 Arithmetic Mean 43.62% 6. The appellant relies on the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vis. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. 381 ITR 216 and claims that the aforesaid companies are no doubt large and distinct companies and as such the profit earned there from cannot be benchmarked or equated with the Appellant. 7. Further. The appellant humbly notes that in Asst. Year 2009-10, the Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 22.4.2016 has sent the matter back to the AO/TPO. It is pertinent t…

Mmodal Global Seriveces P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 970/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhm Modal Global Services Acit Circle-15(2)(2) Private Ltd. (Formerly Known As 480, Aayakar Bhavan, Cbay System (India) Pvt. Ltd.), M.K. Road, 3Rd Floor, Bldg. No.3, Mindspace Mumbai-400020. Vs. – Airoli, Plot No.3, Kalwa Ttc Industrial Area Midc, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400708. Pan: Aaacc9165F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Karishma R. Phatarphekar With Shri Harsh Shah & Shri Punit Bothra (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Nitin Shivraj K. Patil (Jt. Cit) Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma R. Phatarphekar with Shri Harsh Shah & Shri PunitFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Shivraj K. Patil (Jt. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…d. vs. DCIT [ITA No. 20/Del/2017] & vii. Sun Life India Services Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA No. 468/Del/2017] b. Cases wherein Bombay High Court held that companies having high turnover should be excluded. i. CIT vs. Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd. [2016] 381 ITR 216 (Bombay). ii. CIT vs. Principal Global Services (P.) Ltd. [2018] 95 taxmann.com 315 (Bombay). iii. Hapag-Lloyd Global Services (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 80 taxmann.com 56 (Mumbai-Trib.) and iv. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 199 (Mumbai Trib.). 9. For exclusion of Excel Infoways Ltd., the ld. AR of the assessee submi…

M/S Sterling Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1220/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (Successor In Interest To Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/O Ibm India Pvt.Ltd,, Iii Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 Pan No.Aabct3727D/Ta-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 143Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IT(TP)A No.1220(B)/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “ C ”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (successor in interest to Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/o IBM India Pvt.Ltd,, III Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 PAN No.AABCT3727D/TA-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant by : Sri Padamchand Khincha, CA Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Kum…

Pangea 3 Legal Database Systems P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 484/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं/ Ita No. 484/Mum/2016 (यनिाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) प्रत्याक्षेप सM. / Co No. 24/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 431/Mum/2016 For Ay 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri MP Lohia &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “J” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं श्री मनोज क मार अग्रवाल, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सुं/ ITA No. 484/Mum/2016 (यनिाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) प्रत्याक्षेप सM. / CO No. 24/Mum/2016 (Arising in ITA No. 431/Mum/2016 for AY 2011-12) Pangea3 Legal Database Systems Private Limited, Level 3, Tower II, Phase II, Raiaskaran ……………. Appellant Tech Park, Saki naka, Andheri-Kurla Road, / अपीलाथी Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायी लेखा सुं /PAN…

DCIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pangea 3 Legal Database Systems P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 431/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सुं/ Ita No. 484/Mum/2016 (यनिाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) प्रत्याक्षेप सM. / Co No. 24/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 431/Mum/2016 For Ay 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri MP Lohia &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “J” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं श्री मनोज क मार अग्रवाल, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सुं/ ITA No. 484/Mum/2016 (यनिाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) प्रत्याक्षेप सM. / CO No. 24/Mum/2016 (Arising in ITA No. 431/Mum/2016 for AY 2011-12) Pangea3 Legal Database Systems Private Limited, Level 3, Tower II, Phase II, Raiaskaran ……………. Appellant Tech Park, Saki naka, Andheri-Kurla Road, / अपीलाथी Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायी लेखा सुं /PAN…

Schl (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2495/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sunil K. Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…ity of this company. Thus, he submitted, the company cannot be treated as comparable to the assessee. In support of such contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT V/S Paintair Water India Pvt. Ltd., [2016] 381 ITR 216 (Bom.); ii) PCIT v/s B.C. Management Services Pvt. Ltd., [2018] 403 ITR 45 (Del.); iii) Agilent Technologies (International) Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO, ITA no.1620/Del./2015 &Ors, dated 12th February 2018; and iv) Intgreon Managed Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.6927/Mum./2016, dated 14.12.2018. 7. As regards e–clerx Ltd., the learned Authoris…

M/S Open Silicon Research Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1997/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth .G.S, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)

…essed. “Ground nos. 4 & 5:- 4. 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 and Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Aptean Software India (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, reported in 60 taxmann.com IT(TP)A No. 1997/Bang/2016 Page 2 of 4 49. 5. Without prejudice. the authorities below ought to have restricted the upper limit of turnover at 10 times that of the appellant as held by the Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs.…

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Schutz Dishman Biotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2686/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2686/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Schutz Dishman Biotech Ltd Income-Tax, Bhadraraj Chambers, Nr. Swastik Circle 4(1)(1), Cross Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaccs 0988 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr Dr Assessee By : Shri Tp Hemani, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/06/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: The Revenue Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A)-8, Ahmedabad Dated 1St September 2017 Passed For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Revenue Is That Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,89,36,781/- Which Was Made By The Assessing Officer On The Recommendation Of Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) In The Value Of International Transactions Of The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Ae).

For Appellant: Shri TP Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr DR
Section 92C

…alysis, and due to this, adjudicator is required to apply appropriate filter in order to work out comparables which have not under any influence of the related party transactions. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd., 381 ITR 216 concluded that turnover is obviously a relevant factor to be considered for comparability. Hon'ble High Court has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd., (2013) 36 taxmann.com 289. Thus, there are conflicting decisions in favour or against the application of turnover filter.…

Asst CIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pangea3 Legal Database P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1923/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Singh-Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…are identical to the present facts and would make Infosys BPO Ltd., not comparable. No difference is shown to us which would warrant a different view in the present facts. Moreover, this Court in CIT v. Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd. [2016] 69 taxmann.com 180/381 ITR 216 has taken a view that huge difference in turnover between the tested party and the comparable would necessarily require the proposed comparable to be excluded. (iv) We find that the view taken on the aforesaid finding of fact is a possible view. Keeping in mind the turnover difference as well as functional dissimilarity, we direct for exclusion…

Pangea Legal Database Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 10(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1663/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Singh-Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…are identical to the present facts and would make Infosys BPO Ltd., not comparable. No difference is shown to us which would warrant a different view in the present facts. Moreover, this Court in CIT v. Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd. [2016] 69 taxmann.com 180/381 ITR 216 has taken a view that huge difference in turnover between the tested party and the comparable would necessarily require the proposed comparable to be excluded. (iv) We find that the view taken on the aforesaid finding of fact is a possible view. Keeping in mind the turnover difference as well as functional dissimilarity, we direct for exclusion…

International Speciality Products (India) P Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1279/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “के” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.(TP)A. No.1279/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. International Specialty Products ACIT-15(2)(1) (India) Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. बनाम नाम/ No.601, 606-608 नाम नाम Platinum Techno Park Vs. Plot No.17-18, Sector-30A Mumbai-400 705. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABCI-8200-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : : S/Shri PVSS Prasad / Jitendra अपीलाथ"…

M/S. Schutz Dishman Biotech Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1947/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1909/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1947/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1.The Dcit 1. Schutz Disman बनाम/ Circe-8, Ahmedabad Biotech Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 2. Schutz Dishman Biotech 2. The Dcit Ltd. Circle-8 Bhadraraj Chambers Ahmedabad Nr.Swastik Cross Road Navrangpura, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 0988C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri Parimal Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 36(1)(va)Section 41

…alysis, and due to this, adjudicator is required to apply appropriate filter in order to work out comparables which have not under any influence of the related party transactions. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd., 381 ITR 216 concluded that turnover is obviously a relevant factor to be considered for comparability. Hon’ble High Court has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd., (2013) 36 taxmann.com 289. Thus, there are conflicting decisions in favour or against the application of turnover filter.…

The DCIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Schutz Dishman Biotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1909/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1909/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1947/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1.The Dcit 1. Schutz Disman बनाम/ Circe-8, Ahmedabad Biotech Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 2. Schutz Dishman Biotech 2. The Dcit Ltd. Circle-8 Bhadraraj Chambers Ahmedabad Nr.Swastik Cross Road Navrangpura, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 0988C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri Parimal Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 36(1)(va)Section 41

…alysis, and due to this, adjudicator is required to apply appropriate filter in order to work out comparables which have not under any influence of the related party transactions. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd., 381 ITR 216 concluded that turnover is obviously a relevant factor to be considered for comparability. Hon’ble High Court has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd., (2013) 36 taxmann.com 289. Thus, there are conflicting decisions in favour or against the application of turnover filter.…

M/S. Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1904/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O. P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Tower-B, First Floor, Global Circle-3(2), Room No.380-B, Business Park, Mg Road, C.R. Building, New Delhi Gurgaon Pan :Aaeca3592N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O. P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Tower-B, First Floor, Global Circle-3(2), Room No.380-B, Business Park, MG Road, C.R. Building, New Delhi Gurgaon PAN :AAECA3592N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Shashwat Bajpai & Sh. Sharad Agarwal, Advocates Respondent by Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 24.09.2018 Date of pronouncement 03.12.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dat…

Bothra Shipping Services(Currently Known As Bothra Shipping Services (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result ground no. 11 & 12 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 178/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bothra Shipping Services ......…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant (Currently Known As Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 10 2Nd Floor “Sagar Estate 2 Clive Ghat Street Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aadfb 8479 P] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Naresh Jain & Mrs. Arati Debnath, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31St , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’). As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 2. Brief Facts Of This Case Are Brought Out By The Ld. Drp At Page 1 Of His Order Which Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- Bothra India Is Engaged In The Business Of Handling Bulk Cargoes. Its Activities Include Vessel Handling, Stevedoring & Cargo Handling, Clearing & Forwarding & Other Port Related Activities. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd ('Jaldhi Overseas') Engages Bothra India For Vessel Handling At The Port, To Provide Various Vessel Related Services Until The Vessel

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

…turnover of the assessee company is Rs.275 Crores whereas of ‘Malabar’ is Rs.1.96 Crores. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 19 taxmann.com 180 & CIT v. Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 216 (Bom.) b. ‘Malabar’ is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Aspinwall Ltd. M/s. Aspinwall was taken as a comparable both by the assessee as well as by the T.P.O. and this holding company reported a profit margin of 3.13% on a turnover of Rs.80 Crores and whereas ‘Malabar’, the subsidy company reported margin of 42.33% on a low turnover of Rs.1.96 Crores. Th…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Akamai Technologies India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/464/2016HC Karnataka26 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…ial on record. The Hon’ble Date of Judgment 26-07-2018, ITA No.464/2016 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax & another Vs. M/s.Akamai Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. 7/10 Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. (381 ITR 216) had held that the turnover was a relevant factor for the purpose of comparability of two entitles. However, without going into this issue, as rightly submitted by the learned AR of the respondent-assessee- company, it was held by the co-ordinate benches of Hyderbabad and Mumbai benches in the cases cited supra, Wipro BPO Solutions Ltd., c…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Tieto Telecom R & D Services Pvt Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 335/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.242/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Tieto It Services India Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, D-Building, Weikfield It Citi Info Park, Nagar Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aaacf3424C Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT
Section 143(3)

…010, relating to assessment year 2006-07, order dated 31.05.2011. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee on the other hand, placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 216 (Bom). 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises by way of ground of appeal No.4 is against the transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of assessee. The assessee was engaged in provision of software services to its overseas group companies and third party customers in India. The assessee in TP s…

Tieto It Services India Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

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

ITA 242/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.242/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Tieto It Services India Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, D-Building, Weikfield It Citi Info Park, Nagar Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aaacf3424C Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT
Section 143(3)

…010, relating to assessment year 2006-07, order dated 31.05.2011. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee on the other hand, placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 216 (Bom). 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises by way of ground of appeal No.4 is against the transfer pricing adjustment made in the hands of assessee. The assessee was engaged in provision of software services to its overseas group companies and third party customers in India. The assessee in TP s…