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.

Prl Commr of Income Tax-5 vs. M/S Someswara Cemets and Chemicals Ltd., Hyd

ITTA/464/2016HC Telangana28 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

M/S.Microobjects P. Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 470/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri P K Bansal & George George K, Jm M/S. Microobjects Private Limited, Vs The Asst. Commr Of Income Tax 41/1098B, Pullepady Cross Road, Corporate Circle 1(2), Kochi. Kochi-682018. ( Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(4)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…hus it argued that these companies cannot be compared with assessee company. In support of his contentions, the learned AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax, Goa vs. M/s. Pentair Water India (P) Ltd., Goa (2016) (381 ITR 216) (Bom) 2. CIT vs. Agnity India Technologies (P) Ltd. (2013) 262 CTR (Del) 291. 3. Adaptee (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad dated 24th March, 2014 (ITAT, Hyderabad) 4. Visual Graphics Computing Services India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Company Circle 111(4), Chennai (2017) 79 taxman.com 178 (Chennai-Trib.) 4 5. Trilogy…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. New River Software Services Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed therefore on account of both delay as well

ITA/924/2016HC Delhi22 Aug 2017

Bench: The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh & Telangana. That Appeal Was Dismissed On The Ground Of Maintainability On 30Th June, 2016.

…ITA 924/2016 Page 1 of 4 $~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 924/2016 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. versus NEW RIVER SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Shikhar Garg & Mr. Prashant Meharchandani, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 22.08.2017 C.M. No. 30036/2017 (for condonation of 7 days’ delay in filing the reply) 1. The application has been fi…

Lionbridge Technologies P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 912/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm I.T.(Tp)A. No. 912/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Lionbridge Technologies Pvt. Ltd Asst Cit 15(2)(1) 3Rd Floor, Reliable Tech Park Off R. No. 403, 4Th Floor, Vs. Thane, Belapur Road Airoli, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Navi Mumbai – 400 708 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aabct3380Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) I.T.(Tp)A. No.1600/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst Cit 15(2)(1) M/S. Lionbridge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 403, 4Th Floor, Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Reliable Tech Park Off Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Thane, Belapur Road Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 708 Pan/Gir No. Aabct3380Q ( Appellant) : ( Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna Phatarphekar &For Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Wada & Shri
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM I.T.(TP)A. No. 912/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Lionbridge Technologies Pvt. Ltd ASST CIT 15(2)(1) 3rd Floor, Reliable Tech Park off R. No. 403, 4th Floor, Vs. Thane, Belapur Road Airoli, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Navi Mumbai – 400 708 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No. AABCT3380Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) I.T.(TP)A. No.1600/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 ASST CIT 15(2)(1) M/s. Lionbridge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 403, 4th Floor, Ltd., 3rd Floor, Reliable Tech Park off Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.…

M/S. Mps Technologies Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 20

ITA 2031/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 2031/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008. M/S. Mps Technologies Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Since Merged With Mps Ltd) Of Income Tax, 27, G.N. Chetty Road, Company Circle Iv(3) T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaecm 0205A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Pathclavath Peereja, CIT
Section 144C

…sentative submitted that it had a turnover of "650 crores. As per ld. Authorised Representative assessee’s turnover was only "33.5 crores. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd, (2016) 381 ITR 216 and that of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd (2013) 93 DTR 375, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that Infosys BPO Ltd had to be excluded from the list of comparables. Arguing for the exclusion of M/s. Maple Esolutions Ltd, ld. 5. Authorised Representative submitted that directors of the…

Visual Graphics Computing Services India (P) Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Co Cle III (4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 28

ITA 2340/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2340/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Nishant Thakkar, Adv &
Section 10ASection 144CSection 234BSection 234C

…presentative was that M/s. :- 12 -: Infosys BPO was working at a much higher scale than the assessee. As per the ld. Authorised Representative by virtue of Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd, (2016) 381 ITR 216 M/s. Infosys BPO Limited could not be considered as a good comparable. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd (2013) 93 DTR 375. Contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that M/s. 21. Cosmic Global Limited was assessee’s own comparable and therefore assesse…

Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd ( Formerly Known As Htmt Global Solutions Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4933/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 4933/Mum./2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007–08) Hinduja Global Solutions Limited (Formerly Known As Htmt Global Solutions Ltd.) 171, Hinduja House ……………. Appellant Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaact1763A V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–8(2), Mumbai आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 4950/Mum./2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007–08) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–8(2), Mumbai V/S Hinduja Global Solutions Limited (Formerly Known As Htmt Global Solutions Ltd.) 171, Hinduja House ……………. Respondent Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaact1763A निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Batik Poddar A/W Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar & Shri Harsh Shah रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 05.10.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016

For Appellant: Shri Batik Poddar a/wFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 10A

…different benches of the Tribunal have held that these companies cannot be considered as comparable to a captive service provider. The same view has also been expressed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd., [2016] 381 ITR 216. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we agree with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that these two companies cannot be treated as comparable to the assessee. 27. At the time of hearing, learned Authorised Representative has submitted before us a chart showing computation of margin after exclusion of the following companies:– i) Bodhtree Cons…

DCIT vs. M/S Akamai Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 879/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 10ASection 10B

…bench of Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Services Centre (India) P. Ltd. (ITA No.3774/Mum/2011). 10.1 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Hon’ble 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 entities. 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 Hyderabad and Mumbai benches in the cases cited supra, Wipro BPO Solutions Ltd., cannot be…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Telelogic India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 30/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…ge 20 of 21 Technologies India Pvt.Ltd in IT(TP)A No.879/Bang/2013 wherein it has been held as follows: “10.1 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Hon’ble 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 entities. 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 Hyderabad and Mumbai benches in the cases cited supra, Wipro BPO Solutions Ltd., cannot be…