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.

Viacom 18 Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

ITA 8754/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

…of CIT(A). 9. The another aspect is that there is no estoppel against the assessee when arguing against the exclusion of its own comparable and this issue is covered by the Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCII vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 307 (Chandigarh) (SB). Hence, on that account also the CIT(A) has rightly directed! AO I TPO for exclusion of assessee's own comparable of broadcasting companies. 13.1 Accordingly, ground no.5, raised by the assessee is allowed. 14. With regard to grounds no.6 and 7, both the parties conceded before us that the issues raised in these grounds are now…

M/S Ge Be Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 3263/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Devarathna Kumar, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…ITA No. 533/2016 upheld the observations of this Tribunal that exclusion of assessee’s own comparable at the request of assessee. This Tribunal had relied on the decision of Hon’ble Chandigarh Special Bench in case of Quark Systems vs DCIT reported in (2010) 38 SOT 307. It is submitted that, company sought to be excluded were inadvertently included in the set of comparables without appreciating the functions which are in the nature of engineering design services. He submitted that, these comparables were predominantly software product companies and cannot be compared to the functions performed by assessee under…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Future First Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3476/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 197(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40a

…e is entitled to argue at least before the Appellate Authorities that a wrong stand taken at the time of filing of the return should be allowed to be modified. Similarly, the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 307 (Chd.) also allowed the assessee to claim exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables which were inadvertently included by it in its transfer pricing study. Therefore, we agree with the contention of the Ld. Authorized Representative that assessee has a right to argue for the exclusion of comparable even if originally it was includ…

M/S. Evolving Systems Network India Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2751/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2751/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Evolving Systems Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Gurudas Heritage, #59/2, 100 Feet Income Tax, Ring Road, Banashankari Ii Stage, Circle – 2(1)(2), Bengaluru – 560 070. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabce 2761 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C

…t be denied the right to seek its exclusion before the Tribunal and in this regard the learned counsel for Assessee has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Special Bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. ([2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD.) (SB)) for the proposition that the IT(TP)A No.2751/Bang/2017 Page 8 of 9 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. We therefore direct exclusion of the aforesaid 5 companies from the list of comparable companies. 11. The on…

Future First Info. Servicees Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 9(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3838/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 197(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40a

…e is entitled to argue at least before the Appellate Authorities that a wrong stand taken at the time of filing of the return should be allowed to be modified. Similarly, the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 307 (Chd.) also allowed the assessee to claim exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables which were inadvertently included by it in its transfer pricing study. Therefore, we agree with the contention of the Ld. Authorized Representative that assessee has a right to argue for the exclusion of comparable even if originally it was includ…

Dentsply India Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 752/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 752/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Ita No. 1682/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 4195/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No. 263, Fies, Patparganj Circle-10(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd3171E Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 254

…f goods and there is no value addition. Further, he referred to the various decisions of the Tribunal which are listed below wherein it has been held that in case of distribution, RPM is the most appropriate method:– i) DCIT vs Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 307 (Chd.)(SB); ii) DCIT vs Mitsuiosk Lines Meretime India P. Ltd., ITA no. 6397/Mum./2006; iii) Textronix India P. Ltd. vs DCIT, ITA no.1334/Bang./2010 order dated 31st October 2012; and iv) ITO vs L’oreal India P. Ltd., ITA no.5423/Mum./2009, order dated 25th April 2012. 28. Regarding the Assessing Officer’s and learned Commissioner (Appeals)’s ob…

Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4195/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 752/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Ita No. 1682/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 4195/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No. 263, Fies, Patparganj Circle-10(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd3171E Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 254

…f goods and there is no value addition. Further, he referred to the various decisions of the Tribunal which are listed below wherein it has been held that in case of distribution, RPM is the most appropriate method:– i) DCIT vs Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 307 (Chd.)(SB); ii) DCIT vs Mitsuiosk Lines Meretime India P. Ltd., ITA no. 6397/Mum./2006; iii) Textronix India P. Ltd. vs DCIT, ITA no.1334/Bang./2010 order dated 31st October 2012; and iv) ITO vs L’oreal India P. Ltd., ITA no.5423/Mum./2009, order dated 25th April 2012. 28. Regarding the Assessing Officer’s and learned Commissioner (Appeals)’s ob…

Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1682/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 752/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Ita No. 1682/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 4195/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No. 263, Fies, Patparganj Circle-10(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd3171E Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 254

…f goods and there is no value addition. Further, he referred to the various decisions of the Tribunal which are listed below wherein it has been held that in case of distribution, RPM is the most appropriate method:– i) DCIT vs Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 307 (Chd.)(SB); ii) DCIT vs Mitsuiosk Lines Meretime India P. Ltd., ITA no. 6397/Mum./2006; iii) Textronix India P. Ltd. vs DCIT, ITA no.1334/Bang./2010 order dated 31st October 2012; and iv) ITO vs L’oreal India P. Ltd., ITA no.5423/Mum./2009, order dated 25th April 2012. 28. Regarding the Assessing Officer’s and learned Commissioner (Appeals)’s ob…

M/S Mavenir Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 412/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.412/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 234Section 92C

…The Ld.AR submitted that though this comparable was included by assessee. Subsequently it could be alleged for exclusion. In support he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench of Chandigarh Tribunal in case of Quark Systems Ltd., reported in 38 SOT 307. 5. It was submitted that, no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by reason of the above additional grounds being admitted and adjudicated and accordingly the balance of convenience is in favour of such an order being passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal. The Ld.AR states and submits that the issues raised in the additional ground above are legal…

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

…ntion that assessee can challenge the exclusion of a comparable 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…

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

…ntion that assessee can challenge the exclusion of a comparable 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…

Dimension Data India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1155/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं. / It(Tp)A No.1155/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Dimension Data India Limited Addl. Cit Unit No.204-206, 2Nd Floor Range No.551, 5Th Floor बनाम/ Trade Centre Building Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Kamala Mills Compound Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020. S.B. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-2145-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)

…s Cosmic Global Limited Apparently, this entity was not disputed by the assessee before Ld. DRP. However, the assessee seek exclusion of this entity in terms of decision of Special Bench of Tribunal DCIT V/s Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. (SB Chandigarh 22/10/2009) (38 SOT 307). The Ld. AR submitted that this entity has been excluded on account of functional dissimilarity in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09, ITA No.7725/Mum/2012 order dated 27/07/2020 which has followed the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT V/s Aptara Technology P. Ltd.(303 CTR 805). We find that similar facts exist during the year. No…

Huawei Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.150/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Sy No.37, Divyashree Techno Park, Near Epip Industrial Area, Kundalahalli Village, Whitefield, Bangalore-560 037 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 8599L Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, C.A. Revenue By: Shri G. Gurusamy, Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Gurusamy, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…be admitted in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 4 IT(TP)A No.150/Bang/2016 383 (SC) and also placed reliance on the decision of Special Bench of Chandigarh in the case of DCIT Vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 307 wherein it was held that one of the independent comparable which has been included by the assessee as also by the TPO while computing the ALP has been wrongly included in the comparables admitted by the Tribunal; the tax payer is not estopped from pointing out mistake in the assessment though such mistake is the result of evidence adduced by the t…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Alcon Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both the appeal by the revenue and cross objection by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 221/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR-I), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

…d to inclusion of ICC International Agencies Ltd., as comparable company on several counts at page 05 of the written submission filed before the DRP on 04.12.2015. The Special Bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems (P) Ltd. ([2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD.) (SB) has held that 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. We therefore reject that argument of the learned DR in this regard. 24. As far as the plea of the assessee to exclude Asian Business Exhibition and Conference Lt…

Broadcom Communication Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bijay Kumar Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92B(1)

…ompany with the functional profile of the Assessee. A specific ground of appeal has been raised for exclusion of this company as a comparable company in Grd.No.11.6. The Special Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 207(SB)(Chd.) has taken the view that it is open to the parties in Transfer Pricing cases to take a stand contrary to their TP study, if they contend that the stand taken in the TP study is contrary to facts or was erroneous. Such a claim cannot be disregarded only on the basis that it is contrary to Assessee’s own stand in the TP study. We are also o…

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

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

ITA 487/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)

…l in the case of Nvidia Graphics (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2020) 116 taxmann.com 909 (Bang – Trib). It was submitted that the Bangalore Bench of Tribunal order has followed the Special Bench order of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 307 (Chandigarh) (SB) wherein it was held that comparable companies chosen by the 9 IT(TP)A No.487/Bang/2016 assessee in the TP Study can be sought to be excluded before the Tribunal on account of functional dissimilarity or other valid point. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In the TP Study, the assessee has sel…

Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 497/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C

…ed to inclusion of ICC International Agencies Ltd., as comparable company on several counts at page-5 of the written submission filed before the DRP on 4.12.2015. The Special Bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. ([2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD.) (SB)) has held that 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. We therefore reject that argument of the learned DR in this regard. 15. We direct the TPO to compute the ALP in accordance with the directions contained in thi…

M/S. Trident Microsystems India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2234/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2234/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

…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…

DCIT - 8(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Maritime (India) P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed as having become infructuous

ITA 6397/MUM/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 6397//मुं/2006 ("न.व. 2003-04) आअसं. 1548//मुं/2009 ("न.व. 2004-05) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 10(2)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Uodhal Raj SinghFor Respondent: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &

…nd have perused the orders of authorities below. This appeal by the Revenue was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 27/07/2011. The Co-ordinate Bench by placing reliance on the decision of Special Bench, in the case of Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. reported as 132 TTJ 1 (Chd.)(SB) restored the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For the sake of completeness, operating part of the Tribunal order is reproduced herein below:- “13.4 The decision of the Special Bench cited above relates to A.Y 2004-05, whereas the assessment year in the impugned case is assessment year 2003-04. Thus, in…

Aspect Technology Center (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result appeal by the Assessee and the appeal by the Revenue are partly allowed, to the extent indicated in this order

ITA 187/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.187/Bang/2016 Assessment year: 2011-12 Aspect Technology Center (India) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward 1(1)(2), Embassy Star, 2nd Floor, No.8, Bangalore. Palace Road, Vasanthnagar, Bangalore – 560 052. PAN: AACCC 3490K APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.175/Bang/2016 Assessment year: 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aspect Technology Center (India) Ward 1(1)(2), Private Limited, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 052. PAN: AACCC 3490K APPELLANT RE…