DCIT v. Quarks Systems Pvt. Ltd.

DELIVERHEALTH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRC-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 342/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Deliverhealth Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt. Ltd.) The Joint First Floor, Block B, Commissioner Of Salarpuria Aura, Income Tax, Khata No. 434/170, Circle 2(1)(1), Marathahalli –Sarjapur Outer Vs. Bangalore. Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaacf3465F Appellant Respondent

…contested before the DRP seeking exclusion. It is submitted that this does not estop assessee from raising this comparable before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Special Bench in case of DCIT vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. reported in 42 DTR 414 and decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in IT(TP)A No. 1410/Bang/2015. The Ld.AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 and Page 5 of 59 IT(TP)A No. 342/Bang/2022 National Therma…

DELIVERHEALTH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.721/Bang/2021 Assessment year : 2016-17 Deliverhealth Solutions India Pvt. Vs. The Assessing Officer, Ltd., Regional e-Assessment Unit, (earlier known as Nuance NFAC, Delhi. Transcription Services Pvt. Ltd.,) First Floor, Block B, Salarpuria Aura, Khata No.434/170, Marathahalli – Sarjapur Outer Rind Road, Kaverappa Layout, Kadubeesanahalli, Bengaluru-560 103. PAN – AAACF 3465 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate Revenue…

NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

…hich these two companies were excluded as functionally not comparable with a company rendering SWD services such as the Assessee. The Assessee seeks to rely on the decision of the Special Bench ITAT Chandigarh in the case of DCIT Vs. Quarks Systems Pvt. Ltd., 42 DTR 414 (Chandigarh-SB) wherein it was held that there cannot be estoppel against law and that non-comparable companies even if selected by the assessee in TP study can be sought to be excluded by the assessee based on functional comparability or other valid reasons. We therefore admit the relevant ground of appeal seeking exclusion of these two companies…

ITO WARD - 5(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

…hich these two companies were excluded as functionally not comparable with a company rendering SWD services such as the Assessee. The Assessee seeks to rely on the decision of the Special Bench ITAT Chandigarh in the case of DCIT Vs. Quarks Systems Pvt. Ltd., 42 DTR 414 (Chandigarh-SB) wherein it was held that there cannot be estoppel against law and that non-comparable companies even if selected by the assessee in TP study can be sought to be excluded by the assessee based on functional comparability or other valid reasons. We therefore admit the relevant ground of appeal seeking exclusion of these two companies…

FIBERLINK SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.239/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Fiber Link Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Acit, No.99/100, 6Th & 7Th Floor, Prestige Circle – 3(1)(1), Tower, Residency Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Aaacf 8942 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswara Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muzafar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-03-2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 23.12.2015 Of The Acit, Circle3(1)(1), Bangalore, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] In Relation To Ay 2011-12. The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Software Development Services 2. (Swd Services) To Its Associated Enterprises (Ae). The Transaction Of Providing Swd Services To Its Ae By The Assessee Was An International Transaction & The Price Received For Rendering Such Services By The Assessee From Its Ae Has To Pass The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Test As Provided U/S.92 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). In This Appeal The Disputes Is With Regard To Addition Made Consequent To Determination Of Alp & Consequent Upward Revision & Adjustment Made To It(Tp)A No.239/Bang/2016 Page 2 Of 8 The Price At Which International Transaction Was Carried Out By The Assessee With Its Ae In Respect Of Software Development Services(Swd Services).

…s in public domain which renders these companies as not comparable with Assessee engaged in SWD services such as the Assessee. The learned counsel for the Assessee has relied upon the decision of the Special Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems P. Ltd, [42 DTR 414] wherein the functionally comparability of these companies have been examined by this Tribunal and pleaded that the additional ground raised by the assessee may be admitted for adjudication on merits. Ld. AR has submitted that in a series of decisions, the Tribunal has held that there cannot be estoppel against the law and the non-comparable compa…

M/S TRX TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

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

…analysis as a comparable company. Even before the CIT(A), the assessee had not chosen to challenge the aforesaid companies being considered as a comparable company. However the Special Bench, ITAT, Chandigarh, in the case of DCIT Vs. Quarks Systems Pvt. Ltd., 42 DTR 414 (Chandigarh-SB) has held that there cannot be estoppel against law and that non-comparable companies even if selected by the assessee in TP study can be sought to be excluded by the assessee based on functional comparability or other valid reasons. In view of the aforesaid decision of the special Bench, we admit the additional ground for adjudicat…

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

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

…hich these two companies were excluded as functionally not comparable with a company rendering SWD services such as the Assessee. The Assessee seeks to rely on the decision of the Special Bench ITAT Chandigarh in the case of DCIT Vs. Quarks Systems Pvt. Ltd., 42 DTR 414 (Chandigarh-SB) wherein it was held that there cannot be estoppel against law and that non-comparable companies even if selected by the assessee in TP study can be sought to be excluded by the assessee based on functional comparability or other valid reasons. We therefore admit the relevant ground of appeal seeking exclusion of these two companies…

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S ASPECT TECHNOLOGY CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

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

…hich these two companies were excluded as functionally not comparable with a company rendering SWD services such as the Assessee. The Assessee seeks to rely on the decision of the Special Bench ITAT Chandigarh in the case of DCIT Vs. Quarks Systems Pvt. Ltd., 42 DTR 414 (Chandigarh-SB) wherein it was held that there cannot be estoppel against law and that non-comparable companies even if selected by the assessee in TP study can be sought to be excluded by the assessee based on functional comparability or other valid reasons. We therefore admit the relevant ground of appeal seeking exclusion of these two companies…

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CURAM SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1410/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sterling Commerce Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Room No.217, 2Nd (Successor In Interest To Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd.), Floor, Bmtc Building, Koramangala, Ibc Knowledge Park, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Bangalore-560095. Tower D, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore – 560 029. Pan: Aaccc5472Fl Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.1520/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Sterling Commerce Solutions India Income Tax, Private Ltd., Circle 2(1)(1), Room No.217, 2Nd (Successor In Interest To Curam Floor, Bmtc Building, Koramangala, Software International Pvt. Ltd.), Ibc Knowledge Park, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Bangalore-560095. Tower D, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore – 560 029. Pan: Aaccc5472L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswara Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Muzafar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2020

…s in public domain which renders these companies as not comparable with Assessee engaged in SWD services such as the Assessee. The learned counsel for the Assessee has relied upon the decision of the Special Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems P. Ltd, [42 DTR 414] wherein the functionally comparability of these companies have been examined by this Tribunal and pleaded that the additional ground raised by the assessee may be admitted for adjudication on merits. Ld. AR has submitted that in a series of decisions, the Tribunal has held that there cannot be estoppel against the law and the non-comparable compa…

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.979/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax C1 – “Jacaranda”, Wing A, (Appeals) - 5, Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bengaluru. Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.1090/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Jt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs. M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Circle 5(1)(1), Room No.233, Bengaluru – 560 045. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Pan : Aabcn 9200 H 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayan, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr(Itat)(Bengaluru) Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2019 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

…analysis as a comparable company. Even before the CIT(A), the assessee had not chosen to challenge the aforesaid companies being considered as a comparable company. However the Special Bench, ITAT, Chandigarh, in the case of DCIT Vs. Quarks Systems Pvt. Ltd., 42 DTR 414 (Chandigarh-SB) has held that there cannot be estoppel against law and that non-comparable companies even if selected by the assessee in TP study can be sought to be excluded by the assessee based on functional comparability or other valid reasons. In view of the aforesaid decision of the special Bench, we admit the additional ground for adjudicat…

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NIVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.979/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax C1 – “Jacaranda”, Wing A, (Appeals) - 5, Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bengaluru. Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.1090/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Jt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs. M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Circle 5(1)(1), Room No.233, Bengaluru – 560 045. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Pan : Aabcn 9200 H 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayan, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr(Itat)(Bengaluru) Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2019 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

…analysis as a comparable company. Even before the CIT(A), the assessee had not chosen to challenge the aforesaid companies being considered as a comparable company. However the Special Bench, ITAT, Chandigarh, in the case of DCIT Vs. Quarks Systems Pvt. Ltd., 42 DTR 414 (Chandigarh-SB) has held that there cannot be estoppel against law and that non-comparable companies even if selected by the assessee in TP study can be sought to be excluded by the assessee based on functional comparability or other valid reasons. In view of the aforesaid decision of the special Bench, we admit the additional ground for adjudicat…

M/S KBACE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

…l transactions and there is no bar under the Act that the assessee cannot make such claims before the appellate authorities. 12. We heard Ld D.R on this issue. We notice that the Special bench of Tribunal has held in the case of DCIT vs. Quark Systems P Ltd (42 DTR 414) that the non-comparable companies, even if it IT(TP)A No.233/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 8 was selected by the assessee in TP study, could be excluded, since there is no estoppels against law. There should not be any dispute that the ultimate purpose of the Transfer Pricing analysis is to determine the Arms Length Price of International transactions, w…

STMICROELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

…Ltd. (seg), Quintegra Solutions Ltd and Tata Elxsi Ltd (seg) were a part of assessee’s own TP study. Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Quark Systems India (P) Ltd (supra), upheld the Special Bench decision in DCIT v. Quark Systems (P) Ltd [(2010) 42 DTR 414], noting that latter had only remitted the issue of comparability of comparables considered in assessee’s own TP study, back to TPO. Hence we are of the opinion that the issue of comparability of these three companies have to go back to AO / TPO for consideration afresh. However M/s. Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd, Celestial Lab Ltd, E- Zest Soluti…

SHARP SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao

…IT(TP)A.1102/Bang/2011 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'B', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T(TP).A No.1102/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sharp Software Development India P. Ltd, Unit 5, Level 3, Innovator, International Tech Park, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru 560 066 .. Appellant PAN : AAECS0269E v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -12(3), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Chavali Narayan, CA Revenue by : Ms. Jahanzeb Akhtar, CIT - DR Heard on : 19.09.2016 Pronounced on : 23.11.2016…