DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd.

38 SOT 307Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#540 most cited

What is DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. authority for?

An assessee is not estopped or precluded from seeking the exclusion of a company from its Transfer Pricing study comparables, even if initially selected, if it can demonstrate valid reasons for non-comparability.

179

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. · Section 92CA(3) · Section 92C(2) · Section 92D · Transfer Pricing comparables · exclusion of comparable companies · assessee not estopped · TP study comparable selection · benchmarking analysis · functional analysis

Also reported as

132 TTJ 14 ITR (Trib) 606

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 92CA(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271AA

Issues it is cited on

contemporaneous datamultiple year datacaptive service providerfunctional analysissection 92c(2)working capital adjustmentfar analysissection 92drelated party transactioncomparable companiestested partybenchmarking analysis

Judgments citing DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd.

Atc Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 367/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti S. SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, (SR. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…s, without being ex-parte.  Quasi-Judicial Proceedings and Co-operation: o The principles established in Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. Asst. Director of Income Tax (115 TTJ 419) (Delhi Bench) and Swarnaben M. Khanna & Others v. DCIT (132 TTJ 1) (Ahmedabad Bench) clearly state that where the assessment is completed under Section 143(3) and is not an ex-parte assessment under Section 144, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is unwarranted as the Appellant has cooperated with the assessment proceedings. IV. Chronology of Events and Grounds of Appeal:- The penalty is inconsistent wit…

Franklin Templeton International Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2047/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

…ailable. 25.1 The Ld. AR submitted that this comparable was included by the assesse in the TPSR, however the same is sought for exclusion. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Chandigarh Special Bench in case of Quark Systems Pvt.Ltd reported in (2010) 38 SOT 307. He also placed reliance on following decisions in support : 4. ST Microelectronics Private Limited [ITA No.3688/Del/2018] (Delhi ITAT) (Refer page no.B-291-B-316 of Compilation] ITA No.2047/Mum/2014 & ITA No.1495/Mum/2015 Franklin Templeton International Services (India) P. Ltd. 5. Assessee can reject a comparable even though it has considered…

Franklin Templeton Internaitoanl Services (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 7216/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

…been alleged for exclusions now due to the pendency of the appeal for over more than 7 years before the Tribunal. 2.9 In the rejoinder, the Ld.AR submitted that, Hon’ble Chandigarh Special Bench in case of DCIT to v/s. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd., reported (2010) 38 SOT 307, held that, a taxpayer is not estopped from pointing out that it had wrongly taken certain comparable when the assessee can show from the record that there is a prima facie case. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the record space before us. 8 ITA 6986/Mum/2011 & 7216/Mum/2012; A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 Franklin T…

Franklin Templeton International Services (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 3(1)(OSD), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 6986/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

…been alleged for exclusions now due to the pendency of the appeal for over more than 7 years before the Tribunal. 2.9 In the rejoinder, the Ld.AR submitted that, Hon’ble Chandigarh Special Bench in case of DCIT to v/s. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd., reported (2010) 38 SOT 307, held that, a taxpayer is not estopped from pointing out that it had wrongly taken certain comparable when the assessee can show from the record that there is a prima facie case. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the record space before us. 8 ITA 6986/Mum/2011 & 7216/Mum/2012; A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 Franklin T…

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

…r TP study. The Ld. AR further submitted that, inadvertently the assessee could not bring to the notice of the Tribunal during the appellate proceedings for A.Y. 2012-13, the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT v/s Quark Systems (P) Ltd. 4 ITR (Trib) 606, wherein the Tribunal has held that although the assessee has included some comparables in the TP study documentation, the assessee cannot be prevented from objecting to the same company being selected as comparable, if there are valid reasons for doing so. Accordingly, relying on the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT…

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

…r TP study. The Ld. AR further submitted that, inadvertently the assessee could not bring to the notice of the Tribunal during the appellate proceedings for A.Y. 2012-13, the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT v/s Quark Systems (P) Ltd. 4 ITR (Trib) 606, wherein the Tribunal has held that although the assessee has included some comparables in the TP study documentation, the assessee cannot be prevented from objecting to the same company being selected as comparable, if there are valid reasons for doing so. Accordingly, relying on the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT…

Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1076/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Schneider Electric India Vs Acit Pvt.Ltd., 9Th Floor, Tower C Circle-22(2) Building No.10, Dlf Cyber Room No. 226 City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon C.R. Building Hartyana-122002 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aabcs1642G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. & Tanya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

…ITA No.1076/Del/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2007-08] Schneider Electric India vs ACIT Pvt.Ltd., 9th Floor, Tower C Circle-22(2) Building No.10, DLF Cyber Room No. 226 City, Phase-II, Gurgaon C.R. Building Hartyana-122002 New Delhi-110002 PAN-AABCS1642G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. & Tanya, Adv. Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.04.2025 ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM :…

Cvent India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in both the A

ITA 187/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: ShriDheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92D

…an assessee cannot be precluded from seeking exclusion of a company selected by it in its TP study, when the company is otherwise not comparable to the assessee. This has been upheld by Special bench of ITAT, Chandigarh in DCIT v. Quark Systems P. Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 307 (Chandigarh Trik) which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs M/s Quark Systems India Pvt. Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 594 of 2016). A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mentor Graphics (India) (P.) Lal. (2023) 156 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi). 16. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders…

DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. E.I. Dupont India P. Ltd., Gurgaon

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

ITA 7454/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarcorteva Agriscience India Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit, (Earlier Known As E.I. Dupont P. Circle-11(1), Ltd), 17Th Floor, Tower-C, Dlf New Delhi Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace2462M Dcit, Vs. Corteva Agriscience India Circle-11(1), Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As E.I. Dupont P. Ltd), 17Th New Delhi Floor, Tower-C, Dlf Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace2462M Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv Shri Pulkit Pandey, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Rao, CIT DR
Section 144C

…rteva Agriscience India Pvt Ltd said comparable company had a negative networth and was going on financial restructuring phase. Hence, by placing reliance on the Special Bench decision of this tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Quark Systems Limited reported in 38 SOT 307 wherein it was held that business organization with negative networth cannot be treated at par with a normal business organization , this comparable company was sought to be eliminated. The learned CITA duly appreciated the said fact of various functions performed by the said comparable company and observed that the said comparable company is enga…

E.I. Dupont India P. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6879/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarcorteva Agriscience India Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit, (Earlier Known As E.I. Dupont P. Circle-11(1), Ltd), 17Th Floor, Tower-C, Dlf New Delhi Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace2462M Dcit, Vs. Corteva Agriscience India Circle-11(1), Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As E.I. Dupont P. Ltd), 17Th New Delhi Floor, Tower-C, Dlf Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace2462M Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv Shri Pulkit Pandey, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Rao, CIT DR
Section 144C

…rteva Agriscience India Pvt Ltd said comparable company had a negative networth and was going on financial restructuring phase. Hence, by placing reliance on the Special Bench decision of this tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Quark Systems Limited reported in 38 SOT 307 wherein it was held that business organization with negative networth cannot be treated at par with a normal business organization , this comparable company was sought to be eliminated. The learned CITA duly appreciated the said fact of various functions performed by the said comparable company and observed that the said comparable company is enga…

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…

S& P Capital (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2215/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas,Mrudulata and Shri Kranthi, C.AsFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…e authority, the Ld. AR submitted that during the preparation of Transfer Pricing Documentation, no relevant information was available to do a qualitative analysis.. Relying on the decision of ITAT Special Bench in the case of Quark Systems (P) Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD.) (SB), the Ld. AR further submitted that, the assessee is not estoppel from pointing out that MPS Limited has wrongly been taken as comparable in the Transfer Pricing Documentation, wherein it was held as under : "38. Accordingly, on facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that taxpayer is not estopped from pointing out that Datamati…

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

…e and once the assessee can substantiate its claim that it had wrongly taken a particular comparable in the TP study, then the comparable ought to be rejected. For this reliance was placed on Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHO.) (SB) (Para 38) affirmed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court [2011] 11 taxmann.com 427 and Navisite India Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITA No. 5329/Del/2012). 28. The Ld. CIT(DR) submitted that this company was selected as a comparable by the assessee itself in its TP study report which in turn was accepted by the TPO and the Ld. DRP. At this stage, th…

Ashwinkumar Kailashchand Bajoriya, Akola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1-1, Aklo

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 60/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 060/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ashwinkumar Kailashchand Bajoriya, Murtizapur Road, Akola - 444 004 Pan: Abjpb6524E . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Kumar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115WSection 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(ii)

…shak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs ADIT’ reported in 115 TTJ 419 and ‘Jai Gopal Sondhi Vs ITO’ [6305/Del/2017], ‘Ramabhai Kanjibhai Patel Vs DCIT’ [110/SRT/2023]’ and ‘Sardarmal Kothari Vs ACIT’ [2104/Mads/2012]’ and ‘Swarnaben M. Khanna & Others v. DCIT’ reported in 132 TTJ 1. ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 6 Ashwinkumar Kailashchand Bajoriya, ITA No.060/PUN/2022 AY: 2016-17 10. In the instant, admittedly the final assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore following the same parity, we hold that the imposition of penalty ₹10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act against appellant’s failure to attend two notices issued u/s…

Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circe-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 390/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…t was submitted that significant differences in size of the companies would impact comparability. In this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Dy. CIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 207, wherein the Special Bench had laid down that it is improper to proceed on the basis of lower limit of 1 crore turnover with no higher limit on turnover, as the same was not reasonable classification. Several other decisions were referred to in this regard laying down identical proposition. We are not referring to those decisions as the decision o…

Almatis Alumina Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 242/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Limited Commissioner Of Income-Tax/ Vs. Kankaria Estate, 2Nd Floor Income-Tax Officer, National E- 6, Russel Street Assessment Centre, Delhi Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aacca2120N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Hukuga Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. Cit, National E-Assessment Centre, (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Ao”) Dt. 24/03/2021, Pursuant To Directions By The Ld. Dispute Resolution (Drp) U/S 144C(5), Dt. 10/11/2020. 2. We Note That There Is A Delay Of 73 (Seventy Three) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Impugned Order Is Dated 24/03/2021, Which Falls Within The Period Of Pandemic Of Covid-19. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of 2 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Almatis Alumina Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukuga Sema, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92

…sted party. The characteristics of the AE were also taken note of and it was found on facts that the AE was a least complex entity than that of the assessee. The Tribunal placed reliance on the decision in the case of Dy. CIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 307 (Chd.) In the said decision it was held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done due to some mistake on its part. Further, in terms of the United Nations Practica…

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 40A(2)

…erence in the assets employed or risks assumed or functions performed an adjustment could have been made to the results of the comparable company. 2.7 The Appellant relies on the decision of the ITAT (SB) in the case of DCIT v M/s Quark Systems Pvt Ltd [2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD.) (SB). The Honourable Tribunal held that merely because a comparable is making loss, it cannot be excluded from the list of comparables for the purposes of computation of arm’s length price. The honourable Tribunal further held that functional analysis is crucial for determining whether a company has to be selected or rejected as a comparabl…

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)

…ed by assessee. Page 15 of 51 IT(TP)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 8. The Ld.AR further submitted that these comparables deserves to be considered based on the principles laid down by Hon’ble Special Bench in case of Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2010) 38 SOT 307 which has been upheld by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Quark Systems India (P.) Ltd. reported in [2011] 11 taxmann.com 427. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR though opposed admission of the additional grounds, could not bring anything on record which would challenge such a right available to assessee under the Act. We have pe…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1941/Del./2015 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Hapag–Lloyd Global Services Pvt. Ltd. [Successor of CSAV Group (India) Pvt. Ltd.] ……………. Appellant 402–403, Dosti Pinnacle, Plot no.E–7 Road no.22, Wagle Estate, Thane (West) Thane 400 604 PAN – AACCC1314L v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Respondent Circle–1(1)(1), Gurgaon Assessee by : Shri Rajan R. Vora Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue by : Ms. Samruddhi D. Hande Date of Hearing – 13/07/2022 Date of Order – 10/…