What is Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Transfer pricing adjustments under Chapter X are restricted to international transactions between associated enterprises. The case is also authoritative for applying a turnover filter in comparability analysis, holding that companies with turnover between Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 200 crores are not comparable with those above Rs. 200 crores.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144C(3), Section 92CA(1), Section 144B, Section 144C(13).

Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT (53 SOT 159)

Q: How many judgments cite Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT?

57 judgments on BharatTax cite Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT (53 SOT 159), spanning 2015 to 2025.

ACIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. XORIANT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 540/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Toprani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year 2012-13 ACIT, Circle 3(3)(1) Xoriant Solutions Private Room No. 522, 5th Floor, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 7th Floor, 7A & 7B, C wing, Time Mumbai 400020. Vs. Square Building, Mittal Estate, Marol Naka, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 500059 PAN: AAACX0146P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Pankaj Toprani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date of…

ACIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. XORIANT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 539/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Toprani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year 2012-13 ACIT, Circle 3(3)(1) Xoriant Solutions Private Room No. 522, 5th Floor, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 7th Floor, 7A & 7B, C wing, Time Mumbai 400020. Vs. Square Building, Mittal Estate, Marol Naka, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 500059 PAN: AAACX0146P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Pankaj Toprani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date of…

DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TPSC(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 225/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…actions entered into with non-AE. This adjustment is beyond the scope and ambit of Chapter X of the Act." 30. Likewise, the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench, Bangalore, in the case of Genisys Integrating Systems (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 715/53 SOT 159 (Bang. - Trib.) and several other judgements have also explicitly held that while determining the ALP, transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to only international transactions between AEs, and observed as under: vii."…... Chapter-X of IT Act relates to special provisions relating to avoidance of tax and sec. 92 therein relates to compu…

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

…s submitted that an appropriate turnover range should be applied in selecting comparable uncontrolled companies. 14. Reference was made to the decision of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Genisys Integrating Systems (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 53 SOT 159/20 taxmann.com 715, wherein relying on Dun and Bradstreet's analysis, the turnover of Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 200 crores was held to be proper. The following relevant observations were brought to our notice:— "9. Having heard both the parties and having considered the rival contentions and also the judicial precedents on the issue, we find that the TP…

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 291/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.291/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 144CSection 92C

…t of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India (P) Ltd vs DCIT (held as obiter dicta) and the other decisions mentioned supra has held that the law laid down in Genisys Integrating System (India) Pvt Ltd. V. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010 dt.05.08.2011 [152 TTJ 215/53 SOT 159] is the correct law on the application of turnover filter. In the case of Genisys the Tribunal has held that companies having turnover in the range of Rs.1crore to Rs.200 crores cannot be compared with companies having turnover above Rs.200 crores. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the case of Fulcrum is extracted as hereunder: ‘’7.3. W…

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 285/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 92C

…t of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India (P) Ltd vs DCIT (held as obiter dicta) and the other decisions mentioned supra has held that the law laid down in Genisys Integrating System (India) Pvt Ltd. V. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010 dt.05.08.2011 [152 TTJ 215/53 SOT 159] is the correct law on the application of turnover filter. In the case of Genisys the Tribunal has held that companies having turnover in the range of Rs.1crore to Rs.200 crores cannot be compared with companies having turnover above Rs.200 crores. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the case of Fulcrum is extracted as hereunder: ‘’7.3.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED( FORMERLY KNOWN AS SYMPHONEY TELECA CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 631/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.631/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Harman Connected Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) Services Corporation India V. Bangalore. Private Limited (Formerly Symphony Telca Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.) No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Survey No.85 & 86, Sadarmangala Village, K.R.Puram, Hobli Bangalore – 560 066 Pan : Aabcg5658E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Software Development Services To Its Group Companies As Well As Third Parties. For The Assessment Year 2011-2012, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2011 Declaring Gross Total

For Appellant: Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

…l in the case of Autodesk (I) P. Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 263 [Bang. Trib.] after analysing the entire cases on the point, came to the conclusion that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Genesis Integrated Systems (I) P. Ltd. [2012] 53 SOT 159 lays down the correct law on the application of turnover filter and that decision has to be followed. He pointed out that the DRP in the present case has followed the ruling in the case of Genesis Integrated Systems (I) P. Ltd. (supra) and therefore the order of DRP has to be upheld. 18. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissio…

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 703/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

…e of decisions on this issue including that of Chryscapital (held as obiter dicta) and the other decisions mentioned supra has held that the law laid down in Genisys Integrating System (India) Pvt Ltd. V. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010 dt.05.08.2011 [152 TTJ 215/53 SOT 159] is the correct law on the application of turnover filter. In the case of Genisys the Tribunal has held that companies having turnover in the range of Rs.1crore to Rs.200 crores cannot be compared with companies having turnover above Rs.200 crores. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the case of Fulcrum is extracted as hereunder: ‘’7.3. W…

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 344/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

…e of decisions on this issue including that of Chryscapital (held as obiter dicta) and the other decisions mentioned supra has held that the law laid down in Genisys Integrating System (India) Pvt Ltd. V. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010 dt.05.08.2011 [152 TTJ 215/53 SOT 159] is the correct law on the application of turnover filter. In the case of Genisys the Tribunal has held that companies having turnover in the range of Rs.1crore to Rs.200 crores cannot be compared with companies having turnover above Rs.200 crores. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the case of Fulcrum is extracted as hereunder: ‘’7.3. W…

NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 173/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Nuance Transcription The Assistant Commissioner Services India Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) V. Bangalore. First Floor, Block B, Salarpuria Aura, Khata No.434/170 Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout Bangalore – 560 103. Pan : Aaacf3465F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Vishal Kalra, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 22.11.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites) To Focus Enterprises Limited, Usa, Which Is An Associate Enterprise (Ae) Of The Assessee. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Total Income Of Rs.23,99,94,900. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 2 It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017. M/S.Nuance Transcription Services India Private Limited. 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Dated 14.08.2013 Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Had Entered Into International Transactions With Its Ae. Accordingly, The Case Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Ae’S. The Tpo Vide Order Dated 28.01.2016, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Following Tp Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 92C

…ices (India) Private Limited v. ITO (supra) reads as follows:- “7.3.1. The sum and substance of the conclusion of the ITAT in the passage quoted above is that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Genesis Integrated Systems (I) P. Ltd. (2012) [53 SOT 159] lays down the correct law on the application of turnover filter and that decision has to be followed. In the decision rendered in the case of Genesis Integrates Systems (I) Pvt.Ltd., it has been held that companies with turnover of above Rs.200 crores cannot be compared with companies with turnover of less than Rs.200 Crores. In view of the afore…

M/S. BLUE COAT NETWORK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2623/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2623/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Blue Coat Network (India) Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 1001 & 1002, The Deputy 10Th Floor, Rmz Campus Commissioner Of 8-B, Income Tax, Plot No. C-L, Sarjapur Circle – 1(1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Bangalore. Vs. Road, Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aahcs7844Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 22/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle -1 (1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 143(2)

…both sides in light of records placed before us. 38. We note that Ld.AO/TPO has applied filter of more than Rs.1 crore, but did not put an upper limit to the filter. This Tribunal in case of Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2012) 53 SOT 159 and various other decisions have held that, companies having turnover in excess of Rs.200 crores cannot be compared with companies having turnover less than Rs.200 crore. This preposition has been accepted by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs Pentair Water Pvt.Ltd., by order dated 16/09/2015 in ITA No. 18/2015. Hon'ble Court upheld rejec…

M/S. SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 606/BANG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., No. 138, Export It(Tp)A No. Promotion Industrial 2008-09 606/Bang/2021 Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P The Joint M/S. Sap Labs India Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, (Successor To M/S. Special Range – 6, Success Factors Bangalore. Business Solutions It(Tp)A No. India Pvt. Ltd.), 2015-16 2510/Bang/2019 No. 138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA

Section 3(1)(b)

…, as a one sided application of the turnover filter would render the analysis unreliable. In this context, I place reliance on the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional Bench of ITAT in the case of Genisys Integrating Systems (India) CP.? Ltd. v. DCIT [20121 53 SOT 159 (Bang) where it has been held that when there is a limit for the lower end for identifying the comparables, there is no reason why there should not be an upper limit also, as size matters in business. 125. The hon'ble ITAT's observation in the above case is also true in the appellant's case. While a big company would be in a position to bargain th…

M/S. SUCCESS FACTORS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., No. 138, Export It(Tp)A No. Promotion Industrial 2008-09 606/Bang/2021 Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P The Joint M/S. Sap Labs India Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, (Successor To M/S. Special Range – 6, Success Factors Bangalore. Business Solutions It(Tp)A No. India Pvt. Ltd.), 2015-16 2510/Bang/2019 No. 138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA

Section 3(1)(b)

…, as a one sided application of the turnover filter would render the analysis unreliable. In this context, I place reliance on the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional Bench of ITAT in the case of Genisys Integrating Systems (India) CP.? Ltd. v. DCIT [20121 53 SOT 159 (Bang) where it has been held that when there is a limit for the lower end for identifying the comparables, there is no reason why there should not be an upper limit also, as size matters in business. 125. The hon'ble ITAT's observation in the above case is also true in the appellant's case. While a big company would be in a position to bargain th…

M/S. SPRINKLR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 250/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.250/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 & Sa No.22/Bang/2022 M/S.Sprinklr India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, East Wing Building Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(2) V. Bengaluru. No.3, Block B, Divyashree 770 Town Centre, Off Hal Airport Road, Yamlur P.O. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan : Aaqcs9370N. (Appellant/Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 18.02.2022. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Sprinklr Us. It Provides Software Development Services To Its Parent Company. For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 31.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.24,99,66,540. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued. During The 2 It(Tp)A No.250/Bang/2022 & Sa 22/B/2022. M/S.Sprinklr India Private Limited. Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide His Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act Dated 27.01.2021 Determined The Tp Adjustment Of Rs.12,63,71,153. The Details Of The Tp Adjustment Made By The Tpo Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 92C

…l in the case of Autodesk (I) P. Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 263 [Bang. Trib.] after analysing the entire cases on the point, came to the conclusion that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Genesis Integrated Systems (I) P. Ltd. [2012] 53 SOT 159 lays down the correct law on the application of turnover filter and that decision has to be 9 IT(TP)A No.250/Bang/2022 & SA 22/B/2022. M/s.Sprinklr India Private Limited. followed. He pointed out that the DRP in the present case has followed the ruling in the case of Genesis Integrated Systems (I) P. Ltd. (supra) and therefore the order of DRP has…

AMETEK INSTRUMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 432/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.432/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S. Ametek Instruments India The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Benguluru. Plot No.1, Epip Industrial Area, Divyashree Nr Enclave, 4Th Floor Block A, Whitefield Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aahca2869B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT -DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…l in the case of Autodesk (I) P. Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 263 [Bang. Trib.] after analysing the entire cases on the point, came to the conclusion that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Genesis Integrated Systems (I) P. Ltd. [2012] 53 SOT 159 lays down the correct law on the application of turnover filter and that decision has to be followed. He pointed out that the DRP in the present case has followed the ruling in the case of Genesis Integrated Systems (I) P. Ltd. (supra) and therefore the order of DRP has to be upheld. 18. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissio…

M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

…rnover is above Rs. 1 crore. This view of ours is also supported by the order of the Tribunal Delhi Bench in the case of Sapient Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2011] 46 SOT 56/11 taxmann.com 69, Genisys Integrating Systems India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 53 SOT 159/20 taxmann.com 715 (Bang.) wherein held that when companies which are loss making are excluded from comparables, then super profit making companies are also to be excluded from the comparables for determining the ALP. Being so, in our opinion, the Assessing Officer has to recalculate the ALP after excluding only the data of the companies which hav…

SAN DISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 543/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…classification of companies for application of turnover filter by categorizing companies falling within turnover range of 1 to 200 crores, 200 to 500 crores and 500 to 1000 crores as laid down in the case of Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 53 SOT 159 (Bengaluru Tribunal) had to be follows. Following were the relevant observations of the Tribunal: “17.7 We have considered the rival submissions. The substantial question of law (Question No.1 to 3) which was framed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors IT(TP)A Nos.543, 341/Bang/2015 Page 9 of 36 (India)…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SANDISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 341/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…classification of companies for application of turnover filter by categorizing companies falling within turnover range of 1 to 200 crores, 200 to 500 crores and 500 to 1000 crores as laid down in the case of Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 53 SOT 159 (Bengaluru Tribunal) had to be follows. Following were the relevant observations of the Tribunal: “17.7 We have considered the rival submissions. The substantial question of law (Question No.1 to 3) which was framed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors IT(TP)A Nos.543, 341/Bang/2015 Page 9 of 36 (India)…

M/S CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 713/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 92C

…P " 29. Moreover, the above argument of the assessee for grant of capacity utilisation adjustment is also supported by the following decision of Bangalore ITAT in the case of Genisys Integrating Systems (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 12012] 20 tcvcmann.com 715/ 53 SOT 159. Relevant extract of the decision is under:— "15.2 We agree with this contention of the counsel for the assessee. All the comparables have to be compared on similar standards and the assessee cannot be put in a disadvantageous position, when in the case of other companies adjustments for under utilization of manpower is given. The assessee should…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S GXS INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PVT LTD , BANGALORE

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

ITA 331/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.128/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Gxs India Technology Centre The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Prestige Emerald, 2Nd 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Municipal No.2, Madras Bank Road, Lavelle Road Junction Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aabcg7972P. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.331/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Gxs India Technology Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) Centre Private Limited V. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt.Rashmi R. Advocate Revenue By : Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm These Are Cross Appeals Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 13.11.2017. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate The Assessee’S Appeal.

For Appellant: Smt.Rashmi R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

…ate Limited v. DCIT (supra), reads as follows:- “38. We note that Ld.AO/TPO has applied filter of more than Rs.1 crore, but did not put an upper limit to the filter. This Tribunal in case of Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2012) 53 SOT 159 and various other decisions have held that, companies having turnover in excess of Rs.200 crores cannot be compared with companies having turnover less than Rs.200 crore. This preposition has been accepted by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs Pentair Water Pvt.Ltd., by order dated 16/09/2015 in ITA No. 18/2015. Hon’ble Court upheld rejec…

Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT

What is Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT

ACIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. XORIANT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ACIT, CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. XORIANT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

DCIT, CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD vs. TPSC(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED( FORMERLY KNOWN AS SYMPHONEY TELECA CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED), BANGALORE

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

M/S. BLUE COAT NETWORK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

M/S. SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE

M/S. SUCCESS FACTORS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

M/S. SPRINKLR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BENGALURU

AMETEK INSTRUMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

SAN DISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SANDISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

M/S CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S GXS INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PVT LTD , BANGALORE