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 vs. M/S Pmc Sierra India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well as C

ITA 882/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

Section 10A

…and it was found that this 13 IT(TP)A No.882/Bang/2013 & C.O. No.173/Bang/2015 company is not a good comparable. The learned Authorised Representative has also relied upon the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of Quark Systems Ltd. 38 SOT 307 and submitted that even if the assessee has taken a particular company as comparable in the TP study, the assessee is entitled to point out before this Tribunal that the said enterprise has wrongly been taken as comparable. The learned Authorised Representative has contended that the TPO has not applied the employee cost filter and therefore so…

M/S Luwa India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 568/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K. Prasad & Umashankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, CIT (D.R.)

Section 92C

…as well as the decision in the case of M/s. Online India Pvt. Ltd. Dt.18.3.2015 in IT(TP)A No.1036/Bang/2011. The learned Authorised Representative has also relied upon the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of Quark Systems Ltd. 38 SOT 307 and submitted that even if the assessee has taken a particular company as comparable in the TP study, the assessee is entitled to point out before this Tribunal that the said enterprise has wrongly been taken as comparable. The learned Authorised Representative has contended that the TPO has not applied the employee cost filter and therefore some…

Deutsche Networks Services P.Ltd ( Througn Their Successors Dboi Global Services P. Ltd_, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 812/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri A.V. SondeFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali

…t cannot be a sole criteria to prevent the assessee from objecting to the company as a comparable if otherwise it is not a comparable to the assessee. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Special Bench, in Quark Systems, 38 SOT 307. 20. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is stated before us by the learned Authorised Representative that one of the filters applied by the Transfer Pricing Officer to select / reject comparable is RPT of more than 25%. This fact has not been controverted by the learned Departmental R…

Siemens Information Processing Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1359/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: P. Chandrashekar, JCIT (D.R)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

Mercedes- Benz Research & Development India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, assessee's appeal as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed

ITA 291/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (LTU) (D.R)

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “ A ” BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(T.P) A. No.291/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s. Mercedes-Benz Research & Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Development India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Whitefield Palms Plot No.9 & 10, Circle 4(1)(2), Bangalore. EPIP Zone, Phase 1, Whitefield Road, Bangalore-560 066 PAN AAACD 6261B Appellant Respondent. I.T.(T.P) A. No.427/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (LTU) (…

M/S E4E Tech Support (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1053/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandrashekar, CIT (D.R)

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “ B ” BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(T.P) A. No.1053/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s. Pole to Win India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, (formerly e4e Tech Support (India) Pvt. Circle 11(3), Ltd.) Bangalore. No.17/9B, 17/4B, Maruthi Chambers, Rupena Agrahara, Hosur Road, Bangalore-68 PAN AABCV 1574A Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A. Respondent By : Shri P. Chandrashekar, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 18.04.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 08.06.2016…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

ITA 649/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145ASection 80I

…segment as it has profit in earlier years and subsequent years, therefore, in this year it cannot be rejected. In support of its contention, he strongly relied upon the decision of Special Bench in the case of DCTI vs. Quark Systems P Ltd, reported in [2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD)(SB,) wherein the Special Bench upheld that, merely because comparable is a loss making entity it cannot be rejected form the list of the comparables for the purpose of computation of ALP. He further placed reliance on various similar decisions, like:- i) Exxon Mobil Co. India Ltd. v. DCIT [2011] 46 SOT 294(Mum)(URO); ii) TCL Holdings (P) Lt…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

ITA 8534/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145ASection 80I

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sunquest Information Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1604/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T(Tp).A No.1604/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore .. Appellant V. M/S. Sunquest Information Systems (India) P. Ltd, 1St Floor, Eagle Ridge, Embassy Gold Links Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore 560 071 .. Respondent Pan : Aaecs2754E I.T(Tp).A No.1666/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) (By The Assessee) Assessee By : Shri. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 05.05.2016 Pronounced On : 27 .05.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT

Section 10Section 92

…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…

E.I. Dupont India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4774/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Tolani, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri Anand Kumar Kedia &

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI L.P. SAHU Assessment Year: 2007-08 E.I. DuPont India Pvt. Ltd., vs. Deputy CIT, 7th Floor, Tower-C, DLF Cyber Greens, Circle-11(1), Sector 25A, DLF City, Phase-III, New Delhi. Gurgaon. (PAN: AAACE2462E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Deputy CIT, vs. E.I. DuPont India Pvt. Ltd., 7th Floor, Tower-C, DLF Cyber Circle-11(1), New Delhi. Greens, Sector 25A, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon. (PAN: AAACE2462E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ajit Tolani, Adv. Department by: S/Shri Anand Kumar Kedi…

M/S. Lsi Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1380/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 144Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…e companies are functionally not comparable to that of the assessee, therefore the same should be excluded from the list of comparables. He has relied on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD) (SB) and submitted that even in case the assessee has committed a mistake in including the companies in the comparables list, there is no bar in raising the objections against such companies if these are found functionally dissimilar to that of assessee. 14. On the other hand, the ld. DR has objected to the additional ground of the asse…

M/S Net App India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1614/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)

Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ B ’ BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. (T.P) A. No.1614/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s. Nett App India Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Floor, Fairwinds Block, EGL Software Park, Off. Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore-560 071. …. Appellant. PAN AABCN 4063 A Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12(2), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. I.T.(T.P) A No.1633/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Srivastava, Advocate. Revenue By : Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Sopra India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4190/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Agarwal, ITP

Section 144C

…e assessment order dated 31.12.2010 should be sustained. 4. Replying to the above, the ld. AR supporting the first appellate order, submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Chandigarh Special Bench in the case of Quark Systems Ltd reported as [2010] 38 SOT 307 [CHD] [SB], the assessee can resile or discard its own comparables if the 2 3 comparables earlier chosen by the assessee are not really similar to the business of the assessee. The ld. AR further pointed out that as per the order of the AO, the said comparables are similar to the functional profile of the assessee company, but as per the explanat…

Syngenta Biosciences P.Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT Cir 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1083/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Syngenta Biosciences Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Amar Pradigm, Survey No.110/113, Tax, Circle-1(3), Mumbai. Baner Road, Pune-411045 564, Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. (Pan:Aaacz0348M) Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra P. Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)Section 92F

…se of benchmarking and that the same cannot be imported to understand the meaning of rule 10B(4), which in itself is quite clear and unambiguous. It is further mentioned that the Hon’ble Special bench of ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 307 (SB) have clearly given the findings that the comparables which are available in the public domain even after the conduct of the study by appellant can be taken as comparable and can be considered for comparability/benchmarking. Even otherwise appellant has not submitted anything which would necessitable use of multiple year data. Appellant’s subm…

M/S Rolls-Royce India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No.3

ITA 6636/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishirolls-Royce India Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Birla Tower West, Circle-21(2), Vs. 25, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabcr5277Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…verification. Hence, In view of this respectfully following the decision of honourable special bench in Deputy Commissioner of Rolls Royce India Private Limited V DCIT ITA No 6636 Del 2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 18 of 22 Income-tax V Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. 2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD.) (SB) We remit this comparable back to the file of the Ld. TPO for exclusion or retention of this comparable as plea for its exclusion has been raised before us for the first time. 24. The next comparable is HSCC India Ltd. which has been included by ld. TPO based on page no.7 of the annual report of that company. However, on reading of the…

Cowi India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result ground NO.2

ITA 5709/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishicowi India Pvt. Ltd., Acit, 121, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon Circle-I, Vs. Gurgaon, Gurgaon Pan:Aaack0921H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.Himanshu S. Sinha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 271Section 92Section 92CSection 92D

…TPO or before ld. DRP. Hence, In view of this respectfully following the Cowi India private Limited V ACIT ITA No 5709/Del/2011 A Y 2007-08 Page 14 of 17 decision of honourable special bench in Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax V Quark Systems (P.)Ltd. 2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD.) (SB) We remit this comparable back to the file of the Ld. TPO for exclusion or retention of this comparable as plea for its exclusion has been raised before us for the first time. ix. Maple E-Solutions Limited This comparable has been selected by TPO however, assessee objected stating that this company has been taken on by M/s. Triton Corp…

DCIT vs. M/S Electronics for Imaging India P. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 285/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 92C(2)

…ble with the function of the assessee and therefore, it cannot be included in the list of comparables for determination of ALP. He has relied upon the decision of Special Bench of ITAT of Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT V/s QUARK SYSTEMS (P.) LTD. [2010] 38 SOT 307 (ITAT [Chand]). The ld. AR has further pointed out that in case of M/s KALS Information Systems Ltd (Seg.), M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd (Seg.) and M/s Wipro Ltd (Seg.), the result of software segment are included in software product and no separate data for software development segment are given by these companies, therefore, the revenue and the margin of…

Electronics for Images India Pvt, . Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT

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

ITA 227/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 92C(2)

Telelogic India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1599/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

…le with the function of the assessee and therefore, it cannot be included in the list of comparables for determination of ALP. He has relied upon the decision of Special Bench of ITAT of Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT V/s QUARK SYSTEMS (P.) LTD. [2010] 38 SOT 307 (ITAT[Chand]). The ld. AR has further pointed out that in case of M/s KALS Information Systems Ltd (Seg.), M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd (Seg.) and M/s Wipro Ltd (Seg.), the result of software segment also includes software product and no separate data for software development segment are given by these companies, therefore, the revenue and the margin of…

M/S. Hewlett Packard India Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1456/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Ajith Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234DSection 37

…arable for the purpose of determination of ALP. The 27 IT(TP)A No.1456/Bang/2010 learned Authorised Representative has relied upon the decision of the Special Bench of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Quartk Systems P. Ltd. (2010) (Chd.) (SB) 38 SOT 307 and submitted that the Special Bench has Ltd.(supra) as well as Ariba Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and submitted that this company shall be excluded from the list of comparables on the ground of functional dis-similarity. 16.3 On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has objected to the admission of the additional grou…