How many judgments cite DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd.?

179 judgments on BharatTax cite DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. (38 SOT 307), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 234B, Section 92CA(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 14A.

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 367,154 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 234B Section 92CA(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A Section 271(1)(c)Section 271AA

Issues it is cited on

contemporaneous data multiple year data captive service provider functional analysis section 92c(2)working capital adjustment far analysis section 92d related party transaction comparable companies tested party benchmarking analysis

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

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Capita Offshore Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7141/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri M.P. Lohia/ Hemen ChandariyaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande-DR

Section 144C(3)

…behalf of the Revenue by stating that the learned Departmental Representative could not improve the order of the TPO, the learned Departmental Representative pressed into service the Special Bench order in the case of Dy. CIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 307/4 ITR (Trib.) 606 (Chd.) (SB)]. 41. Primarily we need to decide as to whether the learned Departmental Representative, while arguing the appeal, can validly improve the order of the AO/TPO by contending that the assessing authority was wrong in accepting a particular claim of the assessee. In the case of Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. (supra) the assesse…

M/S.Filtrex Technologies Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 469/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos.469/Bang/2017 (Asst. Year – 2012-13) M/S Filtrex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., #36/4, Raghavendra Nagar, Near Ring Road, 4Th Cross, Hrbr Layout, Bangalore. Pan – Aaacf4091P. …..Appellant Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-(3)(1), Bengaluru. …. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Padmchand Khincha, C.A Respondent By : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08-03-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Padmchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92

…d that the revenue should not be given a second innings. We are of the view that there cannot be any estoppels in cases involving Transfer Pricing. These are new provisions and are evolving. The ITAT special bench in the case of Quark Systems Pvt.Ltd., (2010) 38 SOT 307 (Chd.)(SB) has held that there cannot be estoppel in Transfer Pricing issues and the law on the subject was evolving and it would not be unfair to hold that an Assessee can take a stand that a company chosen by it as comparable is in fact not comparable. Keeping in mind the decision of the Special Bench referred to above, we are of the view that t…

Deputy Commissioner Income-Tax vs. Ventura (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1800/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ventura (India) Pvt. Ltd., Wing C, Marisoft, Kalyani Nagar Annex, Vadgaon Sheri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce3274C Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 7, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…. 16. Now, coming to the plea of assessee vis-à-vis rejection of companies which were originally selected in TP study by the assessee. The said issue has been decided by the Special Bench of Chandigarh Tribunal in DCIT Vs. Quark Systems India (P) Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 207 (Chd) and it has been held that the assessee can exclude the concerns in case on a later date, certain factors come into his domain which make the said concern as functionally not comparable. 17. The said proposition has also been laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No.1120…

Ventura (India) Private Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1788/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru

Section 10ASection 143(3)

P & H Joy Mining Equipment India Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1101/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri R.N.Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘C’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM ] Assessment Year : 2004-05 P & H Joy Mining Equipment India -versus- A.C.I.T.-Circle-12, Ltd., (now known as Joy Global(India) Kolkata Ltd.), Kolkata (PAN:AAACJ 8033 D) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri R.N.Bajoria, AR For the Respondent: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 05.02.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2018 ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 17.02.2011 of C.I.T.(A)-XXXII, Kolkata relating…

M/S Philips Electronics India Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I, .T Cir - 11, Kolkata.

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1894/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…e, it later transpired that these companies were not comparable companies and therefore the same should not be regarded as a comparable company. The assessee has also placed reliance on ITAT Chandigarh Special Bench in the case of Qua Systems Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 4 ITR (Trib) 606 (SB)(Chandigarh). The Special Bench 8 A.Yr.2007-08 & 2008-09 took the view that Transfer Pricing law in India was still an evolving legislation and the judicial trend is being set into motion by decisions and therefore the assessee should not be denied the opportunity of showing as to how a company chosen by it as a comparable company was no…

Philips Electronis India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 857/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

Ncs Pearson India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2556/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate and Ms. Khyati Oadhwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR and Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Senior Dr

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2556/Del./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) NCS Pearson India Private Limited, vs. ACIT, 4th Floor, 18th Ramnath House, Circle 13 (1), Yusuf Sarai, Community Centre, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 016. (PAN : AABCN7923R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate and Ms. Khyati Oadhwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR and Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Senior Dr Date of Hearing : 07.09.2017 Date of Order : 25.10.2017 O R D E R PER…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/ Sdell International Services India (P) Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, IT(TP)A No

ITA 1026/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147

…a company chosen by the Assessee as comparable in its TP study is later found to be not comparable, such company should be excluded for the purpose of comparability. 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 IT(TP)A Nos. 85 & 1026/B/14, 1838/B/13 & CO No.21/B/16 Page 33 of 36 disregarded only on the basis th…

JCIT vs. M/S Dell International Services India

In the result, IT(TP)A No

ITA 1838/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147

Sh. Evalueserve.Com Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4001/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishievalueserve.Com Private Vs. Ito, Ltd, Ward-11(2), 701, Guru Apartments, New Delhi Sector-14, Rohni, New Delhi Pan: Aaace8014F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: i. Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv ii. Sh. Sumit Lal ChandaniFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)(ii)Section 234BSection 271Section 92Section 92C

…pricing adjustments up to 2017 and then arguing for exclusion of comparables in 2017. Assessee has placed strong reliance on the decision of special bench of tribunal in case of DCIT V Quark systems Private Limited (2010] 4 ITR(T) 606 (Chandigarh) (SB)/[2010] 38 SOT 307 (Chandigarh) (SB)/[2010] 132 TTJ 1 (Chandigarh) (SB) which has allowed the assessee to resile form the comparable i.e. Datamatics Limited though included in the TP study report by assessee. The special bench held as under :- “9. In addition to the above two issues, one more issue is raised for our consideration. This is raised by the assessee as…

Swiss Re Shared Services (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1139/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

Section 10A

…making abnormal profits as compared to the assessee cannot be considered as comparables while determining the arm's length price. For this purpose we place reliance on the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Deputy CIT v. Quark Systems P. Ltd. [2010] 4 ITR (Trib) 606 (Chandigarh) [SB]. Accordingly, in our opinion, super profit companies per se are liable to be excluded from the comparables.” From the above, it is clear that the assessee has made out a clear case in its favour. Since, the Tribunal after due analysis has excluded IT(TP)A.1139 & 1205/Bang/2011 Page - 18 Ultramarine Pigments Ltd, applyin…

J.P Morgan Advisors India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7979/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Mrs. Malathi Shridharan, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

…because the assessee has included these two companies then the assessee is debarred from objecting to the same, if there are strong and cogent reasons.” This proposition was also upheld earlier by the Special Bench in the case of Quark Systems P. Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 307. In view of the aforesaid proposition, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned CIT-DR that assessee is precluded from contesting a comparable which initially figured in its own set of comparables, provided the assessee gives a cogent reason for exclusion of certain comparables based on FAR analysis and also on the basis of judicial p…

DCIT vs. M/S Electronics for Imaging India Pvt. Ltd

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

ITA 462/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamachand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT

Section 10ASection 92C

…sed objection for including the same as a comparable before the lower authorities, or the assessee had chosen in its TP study a company which it seeks to exclude as a comparable. The Special Bench of Chandigarh Tribunal in DCIT v. Quark Systems P. Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 307 has held that the Tribunal is a fact finding body and therefore has to take into account all the relevant material and determine the question as per the statutory regulations and that tax payer is not estopped from pointing out a mistake in the assessment, though such mistake is a result of evidence adduced by the tax payer. We therefore proceed t…

DCIT vs. M/S Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 614/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I(DR)

Section 10ASection 260A

…sed objection for including the same as a comparable before the lower authorities, or the assessee had chosen in its TP study a company which it seeks to exclude as a comparable. The Special Bench of Chandigarh Tribunal in DCIT v. Quark Systems P. Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 307 has held that the Tribunal is a fact finding body and therefore has to take into account all the relevant material and determine the question as per the statutory regulations and that tax payer is not estopped from pointing out a mistake in the assessment, though such IT(TP)A No.614/Bang/2013 & CO No.166/Bang/2015 Page 11 of 35 mistake is a result…

Acusis Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 442/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Sudhakar Rao, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 92C

…from the list of comparables on the ground of low margins. Now it is trite law that the companies cannot be excluded for the reason of abnormal profits or abnormal losses as held by the special bench in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Quark Systems Pvt Ltd., [2010] 38 SOT 307 (Chd.) (SB). However, the TPO/AO is expected to go into the reasons for the abnormal losses or abnormal profits. If it is demonstrated with some evidence that the abnormal losses/profits are incurred on account of some special reasons, the same may be excluded. The coordinate bench in the case of 24/7 Customer.com (P.) Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT [2012] 28 t…

M/S. Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 937/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Swati Joshi, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.937/Del./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 7 (1), 9th Floor, Tower C, Building 10, New Delhi. DLF Cyber City, Phase – II, Gurgaon – 122 002 (Haryana). (PAN : AABCS1624G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Swati Joshi, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23.08.2016 Date of Order : 29.09.2016 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, M/s. Schneider Electr…

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is hereby treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 864/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 15(2)(1), Unit No.702, 7Th Floor, 4Th Room No.403, Floor, A – Wing, Hon’Ble Supreme Aayakar Bhavan, Court Business Park, Vs. M.K. Road, Behind Lake Castle, Mumbai - 400020 Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan: Aaccn0274A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.R Ms. Chandni Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…ee the related party transaction has been much higher. The contention of the assessee was, thus, rejected. 5. Before us, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee, has placed reliance on the Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of “DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.” 132 TTJ 1 (Chd. Tribunal Special Bench) decision dated 22.10.09. We have gone through the said decision. In the said case also it was the contention of the assessee that since one of the comparable suggested by it had shown extraordinary profits, hence it should be rejected/excluded. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant submissions of both the partie…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Xansa India Ltd., Noida

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2283/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ankur Garg, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 40Section 40a

…Page 1 of 91 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3671/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2005-06) ITA No. 628/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) DCIT, Xansa India Ltd, Circle-18(1), Room No.211A, C-2, Sector-1, Noida, Vs. C. R. Building, New Delhi PAN:AAACI0682B (Appellant) (Respondent) Xansa India Ltd, DCIT, C-2, Sector-1, Noida, Circle-18(1), Room Vs. PAN:AAACI0682B No.211A, C. R. Building, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT V Xansa India Limited ITA No. 2283/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2004-05),…

DCIT vs. M/S Fair Isaac India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1776/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodiasmt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I(DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…curately. He submitted that size as one of the selection criteria has also been approved by various Benches of the Tribunal, in the following cases : 1. Dy. CIT vs. Quark Systems (P) Ltd. (2010) 132 TTJ (Chd)(SB) 1 : (2010) 42 DTR (Chd)(SB)(Trib) 414 : (2010) 38 SOT 307 (Chd)(SB), wherein it was held that even the filter of lower turnover of Rs. 1 crore is without any reasonable basis and there is no filter for higher turnover also. The application of turnover filter also leaves much to be desired and has to no rationale basis. In our considered view, it is improper to proceed on the basis that the turnover of Rs…