CIT v. M/s Quark Systems India (P) Ltd.

62 DTR 182High Court2011#3330 most cited
36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. M/s Quark Systems India (P) Ltd.

HERE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 10 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5919/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92D

…y has been wrongly taken as a\ncomparable. We further find that the aforesaid decision rendered by the\nSpecial Bench of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Punjab and\nHaryana High Court in CIT v/s Quark Systems Private Limited, reported in\n[2011] 244 CTR 542 (P&H). Similarly, it was held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional\nHigh Court in CIT v/s Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd, reported in [2017] 245\nTaxman 93 (Bombay).\n23.\nAs regards the objections raised by the assessee that Omega Healthcare\nManagement Services Pvt. Ltd. fails RPT filter, from the perusal of the annual\nreport of Omega Healthcare Manage…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1166/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Sony India Private Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 24 (1), A-18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 044. (PAN : AABCS1571Q) DCIT, Circle 24 (1), vs. M/s. Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi. A-18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi – 110 044. (PAN : AABCS1571Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 19.06.2024 Date of Order…

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1026/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Sony India Private Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 24 (1), A-18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 044. (PAN : AABCS1571Q) DCIT, Circle 24 (1), vs. M/s. Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi. A-18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi – 110 044. (PAN : AABCS1571Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 19.06.2024 Date of Order…

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 9482/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu S. Sinha & Bhuwan Dhoopar, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) & Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…ITA No. 9482/Del/2019 Samsung India Electronics. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 9482/DEL/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Samsung India Electronics Pvt. DCIT, Ltd., Vs. Circle : 22 (2), 20th to 24th Floor, New Delhi - 110002 Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road,Sector 43 DLF Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. PAN No. AAACS5123K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : S/Shri Himanshu S. Sinha & Bhuwan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent by : S/Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) & Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date…

M/.S SYNAMEDIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed in respect of the issues argued and considered hereinabove

ITA 2595/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner Of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aaccn1140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29/10/2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate
Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. PAN: AACCN1140K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue by CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLA…

CSAV GROUP (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

ITA 1941/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D. Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92D

…that a particular company has been wrongly taken as a comparable. We further find that the aforesaid decision rendered by Special Bench of the Tribunal has been affirmed by Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs Quark Systems Private Limited, [2011] 244 CTR 542 (P&H). Similarly was held by Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd, [2017] 245 Taxman 93 (Bombay). Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in EVALUESERVE SEZ (Gurgaon) Pvt Ltd. (supra), we direct the TPO/AO to exclude Infosys BPO Ltd for benchmarking the international tran…

OOCL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2001/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 244A

…that a particular company has been wrongly taken as a comparable. We further find that the aforesaid decision rendered by Special Bench of the Tribunal has been affirmed by Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs Quark Systems Private Limited, [2011] 244 CTR 542 (P&H). Accordingly, in view of the above, the TPO/AO is directed to exclude Om Logistics Limited as comparable for benchmarking the international transaction of „provision of freight services‟.” 14. Therefore, in view of the above, TPO/AO is directed to exclude Balmer Lawrie and Company Ltd, South India Corporation Ltd, and Om Logistics Limited…

OOCL LOGISTICS (INDIA ). P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7024/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 234DSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7024/Mum./2012 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) OOCL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. ICC Chambers, 5th Floor, Saki Vihar Road ……………. Appellant Powai, Mumbai 400 072 PAN – AAACO7690K v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Respondent Circle–7(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Ajit Jain a/w Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue by : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha Date of Hearing – 26/05/2022 Date of Order – 23/08/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been fil…

OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Srivastava

…t of comparables. The Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd. (2017) 298 CTR 197 (Bom.) has reiterated this view which was also taken by the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Quartz Systems India (P) Ltd. (2011) 244 CTR 542 (P&H). Thus, in principle, there can be no quarrel over the proposition that an assessee can claim removal of a non- comparable company from the list of comparables drawn by it which was wrongly included. 13. On merits, we find from the Annual report of this company, a copy of which has been placed at page 508 onwards of the paper book, that it i…

VELOCITY TECH-SOL INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 13, , PUNE

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

ITA 1694/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1694/PUN/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Velocity Tech-Sol India Pvt. Vs. ACIT, Circle-13, Pune. Ltd., 9th Floor, DTC, Near Himali Society, Erandawane, Pune- 411004. PAN : AACCT7151J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by : Shri Deepak Garg Date of hearing : 11.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 30.05.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 517/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 10ASection 143Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(iv)

…the 1st time before this Tribunal. She also submitted that the decision of Chandigarh Page 7 of 55 IT(TP)A No.517 & 570/Bang/2015 Special Bench in case of Quark Systems Pvt.Ltd.(supra) has been affirmed by Hon’able Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 244 CTR 542. 4. The next issue raised in the additional ground is regarding computation of negative working capital adjustment. She submitted that the Ld.TPO computed negative working capital adjustment for the comparable companies by using the standard template of computation, without appreciating the fact that assessee is a captive service provider funded…

PROMETRIC TESTING PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 92C

…e before the Tribunal, even though it was not challenged before the lower authorities, the learned Counsel of the assessee relied on following judgments: • DCIT Vs. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd., [2010] 38 SOT 307 (Chd. SB) • CIT Vs. Quark Systems (P) Ltd., [2011] 244 CTR 542 (P&H HC) • Navisite India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, [ITA No. 5329/Del./2012] • A.M. Tod Company India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [ITA No. 492/Mum./2006] 6 ITA No. 499/Del./2015 & 397/Del./2015 4.2 Relying on the above judgments, the learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that additional ground of the assessee might be admitted. 4.3 On the other hand, the le…

DCIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. PROMETRIC TESTING (P) LTD., GURGAON

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 397/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 92C

…e before the Tribunal, even though it was not challenged before the lower authorities, the learned Counsel of the assessee relied on following judgments: • DCIT Vs. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd., [2010] 38 SOT 307 (Chd. SB) • CIT Vs. Quark Systems (P) Ltd., [2011] 244 CTR 542 (P&H HC) • Navisite India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, [ITA No. 5329/Del./2012] • A.M. Tod Company India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [ITA No. 492/Mum./2006] 6 ITA No. 499/Del./2015 & 397/Del./2015 4.2 Relying on the above judgments, the learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that additional ground of the assessee might be admitted. 4.3 On the other hand, the le…

CHEMINOVA INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2038/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan R. Vora/Mr. Pranay Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Cheminova India Limited, The Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), The Centrium, Office No. 2, 458, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. 4th Floor, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400070. PAN No. AAACL1117E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajan R. Vora/Mr. Pranay Gandhi, AR Revenue by : Mr. Anand Mohan, DR Last Date of Hearing : 09/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27/07/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal f…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MINDA ACOUSTIC LTD. (NOW MINDA INDUSTRIES LTD.), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed in-liminie

ITA 1759/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR)
Section 144C

…t claim in law for which facts on which a treatment is given to an item at the initial stage, turnout to be different on a later stage. The AR In support she relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Quark Systems P. Ltd. 244 CTR 542 Punjab & Haryana High Court. She submitted that unless the foreign exchange loss has been incurred due to any international transactions, the same cannot be treated as operating in nature. She further rrelied upon the judgement of Delhi ITAT in the case of 6 Panasonic Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. 2010 TIOL 47 ITAT (Delhi) TP and Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT…

GIESECKE & DEVRIENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2544/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)

…efore this Hon'ble Tribunal. 41. The Appellant would like to place reliance on the Special Bench decision in the case of DCIT v Quark Systems [2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD)(SB) which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide reported as [2011] 244 CTR 542 wherein it has been held that there is no estoppel in law against the Assessee agitating its own comparables. This view now has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd. [2017] 298 CTR 197 (Bombay). 42. Hence in view of the above decisions it is a settled principle of law that there is no es…

M/S. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 400/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Pune06 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra
Section 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

…cern can be raised at any stage as held by Special Bench of Chandigarh Tribunal in DCIT Vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 307 (CHD) (SB), which has been approved by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CIT Vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 244 CTR 542 (P&H). The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further placed reliance on the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Dover India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra), wherein the said concern was excluded being not functionally comparable to a concern providing market support services. 23. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenu…

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1650/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1650/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Midc, Kharadi Knowledge Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kharadi, Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce4323Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “ए” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1650/PUN/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Cluster C, Wing 1, EON Free Zone, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, MIDC, Kharadi Knowledge Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kharadi, Pune – 411014 …. PAN: AABCE4323Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : S/Shr…

GIESECKE & DEVRIENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5924/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. By relying on the decision of the Special Bench in the case of DCIT v Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD)(SB) [which now stands confirmed by the 36 Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in [2011] 244 CTR 542] he argued that there is no estoppel against law and the assessee can agitate its own comparables. He submitted that recently the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd. reported in [2017] 298 CTR 197 (Bombay) has taken similar view. He submitted that although the said comparable was submitted by the…

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TE CONNECTIVITY GOLBAL

ITA/266/2017HC Karnataka03 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 133(6)Section 260Section 260A

…1/8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03rd DAY OF AUGUST 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.266/2017 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(1), BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (By Mr. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY GLOBAL SHARED SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS ADC (INDIA) COMMUNICATION AND INFOTECH PVT. LTD No.52, GURUDAS HERITAGE, BLOCK-B KADARENAHALLI (100) FT. RING ROAD…

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. M/s Quark Systems India (P) Ltd. (62 DTR 182) — Cited in 36 Judgments | BharatTax