DCIT v. Quarks Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Telsima Communication Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result the both the appeals are treated as allowed for

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. S. Jayaraman

…in the light of the material furnished by the Ld. AR and on the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR and then decide the issue in accordance with law. Relying on the Special Bench decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in DCIT v. Quark Systems P. Ltd., [(2010) 42 DTR 414], the additional grounds are also set aside to the TPO for adjudication. IT(TP)A.497 & 518/Bang/2012 Page - 15 IT(TP)A No.518/Bang/2012 – Departmental appeal : 11. The grounds of appeal raised by the Department are extracted as under : 12. We heard the rival submissions. Since the issue is remitted back to the TPO / AO in the assessee’s appea…

Mcafee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed in the

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

…s 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 57 IT(TP)A Nos.11(B)/12 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, Celesti…

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George

…ting Ltd was concerned, as per the Ld. AR assessee had filed an additional ground before this Tribunal seeking its exclusion. For admission of additional ground, he placed reliance on the Special Bench decision in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. [42 DTR 414]. 12. Adverting to each of the companies that he was seeking exclusion, Ld. AR submitted that Bodhtree Consulting Ltd, was functionally dissimilar to that of the assessee. Further as per the Ld. AR, it had RPT in IT(TP)A.1603, 1722/Bang/2013, CO.14/Bang/2016 Page - 10 excess of 15% as well. In support of his contention that Bodhtree Consultin…

M/S Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.CIT, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T(Tp).A No.1006/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S. Sap Labs India P. Ltd, No.138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru 560 066 .. Appellant Pan : Aafcs3649P

…the IT(TP)A.1006/Bang/2011 Page - 9 appropriateness of the above comparables before the lower authorities. For admission of the additional ground, Ld. AR relied on the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. [42 DTR 414]. Ld. AR also pointed out that very same set of comparables were also considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Hewlett- Packard (India) Globalsoft P. Ltd v DCIT [ITA.1031/Bang/2011, dt.23.09.2015] also, and this Tribunal following its decision in SAP Labs (supra) had directed the exclusion of the companies assailed here. As per the Ld. AR, i…

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

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:

…ound. Hence, according to him, he had filed an additional ground for applying upper level of sales turnover for selection of comparables. As per the Ld. AR, by virtue of decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v Quark Systems P.Ltd, [42 DTR 414], such additional ground had to be admitted. 09. Ld. AR pointed out that Tata Elxsi Ltd (seg), Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd (seg), Persistent Systems Ltd, Zylog Systems Ltd, Mindtree Ltd (seg), L & T Infotech and Infosys Technologies Ltd, had turnover well in excess of Rs.200 crores. Relying on a decision of coordinate bench in the case…

Novell Software Development (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result grounds 4.a, 4

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T(Tp).A No.1287/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Novell Software Development (India) P. Ltd, Bagmane Tech Park, ‘D’ Block, 65/2, C. V. Raman Nagar, Byrasandra Post, Bangalore 560 093 .. Appellant Pan : Aaacn6992K V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -12(2), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. G. R. Reddy, Cit –Dr-I Heard On : 21.03.2016 Pronounced On : 31.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

…. Vis-a- IT(TP)A.1287/Bang/2011 Page - 9 vis Geometric Ltd (seg), submission of the Ld. AR was that an additional ground has been raised for its exclusion. Support was sought from the decision of Special Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. [42 DTR 414]. 14. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed considerable reliance on the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Meritor LVS India (P) Ltd (supra). Profile of the said company appearing in para 3 of the said order does show that it was into software development services segment. Or…

Momentive Performance Materials (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, ground.8 and additional ground raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T(Tp).A No.250/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Momentive Performance Materials (India) P. Ltd, Survey No.6, Electronic City West, Hosur Road, Bangalore 560 008 .. Appellant Pan : Aaacg9931F V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -4(1)(2), Bangalore .. Respondent I.T(Tp).A No.423/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) (By The Revenue) Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. G. R. Reddy, Cit – Dr-I Heard On : 09.02.2016 Pronounced On : 09.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

…y the assessee. As per the Ld. AR, all details regarding Microland Ltd, was available in public domain it passed all filters adopted by the TPO. Reliance was placed by the Ld. AR on the decision of Special Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. [42 DTR 414]. 21. Per contra Ld. DR submitted that Infosys BPO Ltd, was a part of assessee’s own TP study and hence it could not now seek its exclusion. Vis-a-vis inclusion of Microland Ltd, Ld. DR submitted that TPO had no opportunity to verify the comparability of the said company with that of the assessee. 22. We have perused the orders and heard the riv…

Hewlett-Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed protanto

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T(Tp).A No.1304/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S. Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation P. Ltd, 29, Cunningham Road, Bangalore .. Appellant Pan : Aaach7164B V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -11(4), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri. G. R. Reddy, Addl.Cit Heard On : 16.02.2016 Pronounced On : 09.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

…s 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 Solutio…

M/S. Verisign Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P George

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’, BANGALORE BEFORE SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1404(B)/2010 (Assessment year : 2006-07) M/s VeriSign Services India Pvt.Ltd., Summit No.6/B, 7th Main, 3rd Block, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bangalore 560-034 Appellant PAN No.AAACL8712F Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-12(5), 14/3, 5th Floor, R.P.Bhavan, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore-560 001 Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pravin Kishore Prasad, Advocate Revenue by : Shri I.P.S.Bindra, CIT-DR-I Date of hearing : 14-10-2015…

Hewlett- Packard Globalsof Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T(Tp).A No.1031/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Hewlett- Packard (India) Globalsoft P. Ltd, Plot No.39/40, Electronic City – Phase-Ii Hosur Road, Bangalore 560 100 ..Appellant Pan : Aaacd4078L V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle -11(4), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri. G. R. Reddy, Cit – Dr-I Heard On : 01.09.2015 Pronounced On : 23.09.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

…the concise grounds of appeal and the additional grounds are considered then the original grounds need not be reckoned. For the admission of additional ground, Ld. AR relied on the decision of Special Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems P. Ltd [(2011) 42 DTR 414]. According to him, four of the comparables considered by the TPO, namely, Accel Transmatics Ltd (seg), Quintegra Solutions Ltd, Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd (Seg) and Tata Elxsi Ltd (seg), required to be excluded though these appeared in the original list of the assessee itself. As per the Ld. AR, TP issues being evolving in nature, by v…