DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.

38 SOT 207Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#2270 most cited

What is DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

In Transfer Pricing, it is improper to proceed with only a lower turnover limit for comparable companies without an upper limit, as this is not a reasonable classification. An assessee can also challenge its own TP study or the inclusion of comparables, even if it contradicts their initial stand, by contending it was erroneous or contrary to facts.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. · Quark Systems · Transfer Pricing · comparable companies · turnover limits · TP study · assessee objection · functional dis-similarity · comparability analysis · Special Bench ITAT

Judgments citing DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd.

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…

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…

M/S NIVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1360/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C

…the Assessee before us. Though two out of the three companies were chosen by the Assessee in its TP study, before CIT(A), the Assessee has challenged its inclusion. 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. 9. Before we…

M/S. APTEAN INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2638/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2638/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Aptean India Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Formerly Aptean Software India Pvt. Ltd.,) Circle -1(1)(1), Level-5 (8Th Floor), Golden Heights, Bengaluru. No.1/2, 59Th C Cross, 4Th M Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 010. Pan : Aaccp 7154 M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Respondent By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.11.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 11.10.2017 Of Dcit, Circle 1(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called The ‘Act’) Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee & Its Wholly Owned Holding Company Were Associated Enterprises

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

…ause the assessee has wrongly added in the list of comparables will not bar the assessee to take objection against the functional dis-similarity of a company as held by the Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dy. CIT v. Quark System (P.) Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 207 (Chd.). Accordingly, we are of the view that the functional comparability of this company is required to be examined. The assessee did not file additional ground to raise this objection therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we remit this issue of comparability of ICRA Techno Analytics limited to the r…

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. 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…

STAR INTERNAITONAL MOVIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (IT) 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership V. Scindia House, C/O Star India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaefc6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri. Pavan K Beerla (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 92C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “K” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership v. Scindia House, C/o STAR India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN :AAEFC6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ स…

CHANNEL MUSIC NETWORKS LTD PARTNERSHIP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1519/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership V. Scindia House, C/O Star India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaefc6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri. Pavan K Beerla (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 92C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “K” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership v. Scindia House, C/o STAR India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN :AAEFC6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ स…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ANALOG DEVICES INDIA PVT LTD

ITA/454/2015HC Karnataka18 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 10BSection 133(6)Section 260

…was submitted that significant differences in size of the companies would impart comparability. In this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd., 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…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. WITTNESS SYSTEM

ITA/347/2013HC Karnataka11 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 260

…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 DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 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 Date of Judgment 11-07-2018, ITA No.347/2013 Commissioner Of Income Tax-III & another Vs. Wittness System Software India Private Ltd. 10/38 turnover, as the same was not reasonable…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S TRILOGY E-BUSINESS

ITA/171/2013HC Karnataka10 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…e. It 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 DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd., 38 SOT 207, Date of Judgment 10-07-2018, ITA No.171/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax-III & Another Vs. M/s. Trilogy E-Business Software India Private Ltd., 6/14 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 reaso…

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

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…

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

…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…

ITO vs. M/S INFINERA INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the department is partly

ITA 294/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Eric Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 10A

…xercise. It 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 DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 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…

M/S OBOPAY MOBILE TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 469/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeit(Tp)A No.469/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Obopay Mobile Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Technology India Private Of Income Tax, Circle 5 Limited, Enzyme Jnc Business (1)(2), Bengaluru. Center, 2Nd Floor, Mpk Mansion, No.18, Guava Garden, 5Th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095. Pan No. Aaaco9074H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92CSection 92E

…xercise. It 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 DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 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, BANGALORE vs. M/S OBOPAY MOBILE TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 388/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeit(Tp)A No.469/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Obopay Mobile Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Technology India Private Of Income Tax, Circle 5 Limited, Enzyme Jnc Business (1)(2), Bengaluru. Center, 2Nd Floor, Mpk Mansion, No.18, Guava Garden, 5Th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095. Pan No. Aaaco9074H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92CSection 92E

…xercise. It 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 DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 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…

M/S. FCG SOFTWARE SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1447/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P.George

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neeru Malhotra, CIT-(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…apart from reiterating the stand taken as above in the application for admission of additional ground, further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Special Bench in the case of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 207 wherein it was held that a taxpayer is not estopped from pointing out a mistake in the assessment though such mistake is the result of evidence adduced by the taxpayer. 12. The learned DR opposed the prayer for admission of additional ground. According to him the Assessee is taking a totally new plea for the first time before Tribunal by way of a…

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3