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

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.

53 SOT 159Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#2007 most cited

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

Companies with significantly different turnovers (e.g., one above Rs. 200 crores and another below) cannot be considered comparable in transfer pricing analysis. Turnover is a relevant factor in assessing comparability.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd · DCIT · 53 SOT 159 · transfer pricing · comparable companies · turnover filter · section 92CA(1) · functional analysis · FAR analysis · related party transaction · working capital adjustment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92CA(1)Section 144B Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

captive service provider resale price method working capital adjustment transfer pricing order cost plus method functional analysis tested party interest on outstanding receivables comparable companies far analysis related party transaction section 92ca(1)

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

Bothra Shipping Services(Currently Known As Bothra Shipping Services (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result ground no. 11 & 12 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 178/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bothra Shipping Services ......…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant (Currently Known As Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 10 2Nd Floor “Sagar Estate 2 Clive Ghat Street Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aadfb 8479 P] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Naresh Jain & Mrs. Arati Debnath, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31St , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’). As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 2. Brief Facts Of This Case Are Brought Out By The Ld. Drp At Page 1 Of His Order Which Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- Bothra India Is Engaged In The Business Of Handling Bulk Cargoes. Its Activities Include Vessel Handling, Stevedoring & Cargo Handling, Clearing & Forwarding & Other Port Related Activities. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd ('Jaldhi Overseas') Engages Bothra India For Vessel Handling At The Port, To Provide Various Vessel Related Services Until The Vessel

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

…td. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Delhi) E-Gain Communication (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2008] 23 SOT 385 (Pune) Deloittee Consulting India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 144 ITD 451/36 taxmann.com 68 (Hyd.) Genisys Integrating System (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 53 SOT 159/20 taxmann.com 715 (Bang.) 6. The said findings of the Tribunal in respect of the said three Companies are on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record. We find no infirmity in the said findings of the Tribunal on that count. In fact, the Tribunal has endorsed the views of the CIT Appeals whilst coming to such conclusions. The concurrent fin…

The Pr Commissioner of Income -Tax CIT (A) vs. M/S Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/443/2017HC Karnataka02 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 260Section 260A

…1/16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.443/2017 BETWEEN: 1. The Pr. Commissioner of Income -tax CIT (A) 5th Floor, BMTC Building 80 Feet Road, Kormangala Bengaluru-560 095 2. The Income -Tax Officer Ward-11(1), Present Address Ward-1(1)(1) 2nd Floor, BMTC Building 80 Feet Road, Kormangala Bengaluru-560 095 …Appellants (By Mr. Aravind K.V, Advocate) AND: M/s Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd., No.17/2, Dollars Chambers Lalbagh…

Faurecia Interior Systems India P. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 781/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 92C(2)

…utilisation for the purpose of determination of arm's length price. For the above contention, the learned TPO has relied upon following case laws: 1.Centillium India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 23 Taxmann.com 34 (Bang) 2. Genisys Integrating System Ltd. (2012) 53 SOT 159 (Bang) During the DRP proceedings, the Hon'ble DRP upheld the decision of the TPO as lawfully correct.” Thus, the case of the TPO is that the assessee cannot introduce the comparables as and when he chose to do it. Accordingly, the assessee needs to maintain specified documents and data by the specific date for use in TP study. According to TPO,…

M/S I2 Technolgoies Software Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)IV, Bangalore

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

ITA 1208/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazit(Tp)A No.1208/Bang/2014 Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Jda Software Private Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, (‘Erstwhile I2 Technologies India Range 11, Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. Tower A, Mantri Commercio, Near Sakra World Hospital, Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru-560103. Pan : Aaaci7334Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Arvind V. Sonde, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-Dr-I Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2018

For Appellant: Shri. Arvind V. Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR-I

Section 10Section 133(6)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1208/Bang/2014 Assessment year : 2005-06 M/s. JDA Software Private Vs. Additional Commissioner of Limited Income Tax, (‘Erstwhile i2 Technologies India Range 11, Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. Tower A, Mantri Commercio, Near Sakra World Hospital, Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru-560103. PAN : AAACI7334Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Arvind V. Sonde, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR-I Date of hearing : 22.02.2018 Date of Pronounc…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Outsource Partners International Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 526/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT-III

Section 10ASection 92C(3)Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/s. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. PAN: AAACO5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner of M/s. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), PAN: AAACO5734C Bangalore. No…

Outsourcepartners International Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 443/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT-III

Section 10ASection 92C(3)Section 92D

M/S.Microobjects P. Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 470/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri P K Bansal & George George K, Jm M/S. Microobjects Private Limited, Vs The Asst. Commr Of Income Tax 41/1098B, Pullepady Cross Road, Corporate Circle 1(2), Kochi. Kochi-682018. ( Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(4)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…he decision of this Tribunal in; 5 Sony India(P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 114 ITD 448 (Delhi) E-Gain Communication, 2008 TiOL 282 ITAT (Pune) Deloitee Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT : ITA No.1082/Hyd/2010. Genisys Integrating System (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT : 53 SOT 159 (Bang)” 6.1 Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agnity india Technologies Pvt. Ltd. reported in 262 CTR (Del) 291 had held that large companies like Infosys Technologies Ltd. where the turnover is very high cannot be compared to that of a small company which are essentially captive unit of the parent company. Similar…

M/S.Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2315/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 2315/Bang/2016 Assessment year : 2012-13 M/s. Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Private Limited [Formerly known as Swiss Re Shared Services (India) Private Limited], The Deputy Commissioner of Vaswani Centropolis, 2nd to 6th Income Tax, Vs. Floor, Circle – 6(1)(2), No. 21, Langford Road, Bangalore. Langford Town, Bangalore – 560 027. PAN: AAECS 8786L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Chavali Narayan, CA Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, C…

DCIT vs. M/S Google India Pvt. Ltd

In the result, revenue’s appeal and C

ITA 1298/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S Jayaramanrevenue’S Appeal

For Appellant: Shri. S. P. Singh, CA & Shri. Ujwal Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Renuka Devi, JCIT

Section 10ASection 260A

…hich is considered to be abnormal, in the line of business it is engaged. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a comparable in the light of the following decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches; 1. Genesis Integrating Systems (India) (P) Ltd., v. Dy. CIT [2012] 53 SOT 159/20 taxmann.com 715 2. Google India (P) Ltd., V. Dy. CIT [2013] 55 SOT 489/29 taxmann.com 412 (Bang – Trib.) 3. CRM Services India (P) Ltd. case (supra) 4. Fiat India (P) Ltd., v. ACIT 2010-TII-30-ITAT-Mum-TP IT(TP)A No.1298/Bang/2013 & CO No. 13/Bang/2016 Page 24 of 27 5. Global Turbine services Inc. V. DDIT (International Taxation) [2013] 38 tax…

Acusis Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 442/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Sudhakar Rao, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE ` BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.442/Bang/2011 (Assessment year: 2004-05) Assessee’s Appeal M/s. Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 17/2, Dollars Chambers, Ward-11(1), Bangalore. Lalbagh Road, Bangalore – 560 027. PAN : AADCA2415P Appellant Respondent Revenue’s Appeal IT(TP)A No.444/Bang/2011 (Assessment year: 2004-05) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Acusis Software India Pvt. Ltd., Ward-11(1), Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. PAN : AADCA2415P Appel…

DCIT vs. M/S Aci Worldwide Solutions Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and the cross objection

ITA 477/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. H. Ananda, JCIT

Section 92C

…ystems (India) Private Limited TS -299- ITAT-201 5 (Bang)-TP AY 2005-06. 9.1 In this regard, the CIT (A) also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bench of ITAT in the case of Genisys Integrating Systems (India) Ltd. v. DCIT [2012] 53 SOT 159 (Bang) wherein it has been held that when there is a limit for the lower end for identifying comparables, there is no reason why there should not be an upper limit also, as size matters in business, etc., Although this Tribunal in its later decision in the case of ACIT v. M/s. McAfee Software (India) P. Ltd in IT(TP)A No.04/Bang.2012, dt.18.0…

DCIT vs. M/S Vmoksha Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 595/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(5), Bangalore. … Appellant

For Appellant: Smt.Swapna Das, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Bharath, CA

Section 10A

…hose turnover is only between Rs.1 crore and Rs.200 are alone be taken into consideration for the purpose of making TP study following decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Sony India (P) Ltd.,(114 ITD 448)(Del), Genesis Integrating Systems (India) P.Ltd. (53 SOT 159)(Bang.). The relevant finding of the CIT(A) is as under: IT(TP)A No.595/Bang/2013 Page 5 of 6 An identical issue had come up before the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal, to which one of us viz., the AM is a party, in the case of M/s.Societe Generale Global Solution Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT in IT(TP)A No.1188/Bang/2011 dated 22/04/2016, wherein…

DCIT vs. M/S Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 1222/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Shri S.R.Kuruppusamy, JCIT(DR)

Section 133(6)

…A) held that while accepting the lower limit of turnover of Rs.1 crore, the ld.CIT(A) held that upper limit of turnover should also be applied following the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Genisys Integrating Systems (India) P Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012)(53 SOT 159)(Bang). Aplying this filter the ld.CIT(A) held that the following 8 companies are incomparable: IT(TP)A No.1222/B/2013 & CO 165/B/2015 Page 10 of 22 Sl.No. Comparable company 1 Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwild Ltd. 2 Coral Hubs Ltd. 3 Eclerx Services Ltd. 4 Infosys BPO Ltd. 5 Jindal Intellicom Pvt. Ltd. 6 Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd. 7 Wipro Ltd.(segm…

Lrn Technology and Content Solutions (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 329/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasad, आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.329/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Lrn Technology & The Dcit-Circle 9(2), बनाम/ Content Solutions (India) Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-400 020 Nirlon Knowledge Park, Block B6, 3Rd Floor, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400 063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Karishma R. Phatarphekar Shri Keerthika R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Sharma

For Appellant: Karishma RFor Respondent: Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No.329/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 LRN Technology and The DCIT-Circle 9(2), बनाम/ Content Solutions (India) Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-400 020 Nirlon Knowledge Park, Block B6, 3rd Floor, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400 063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by: Karishma R. Phatarphekar Shri K…

ITO vs. M/S Citrix R&D India Private Limited

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and assessee’s

ITA 841/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan, S. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 10A

…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 Genesis Integrating Systems (India) (P.) Ltd., V. DCIT [2012] 53 SOT 159 (Bang) where it was held that when there was a limit for the lower end for identifying the comparables, there was no reason why there should not be an upper limit also, as size mattered in business. 100. While a big company would be in a position to bargain the price, attract more customers and have a broad base of skilled employees who were able…

DCIT vs. M/S Igs Imaging Services India Pvt. Ltd

ITA 470/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T(Tp).A No.470/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -11(4), Bangalore ..Appellant V. M/S. Igs Imaging Services (I) P. Ltd, (Now Indecomm Global Services (I) P. Ltd) 30, Indecomm House, Laskar, Hosur Road, Audugodi, Bangalore 560 030 ..Respondent Pan : Aabci2902H Cross Objection No.150/Bang/2015 (In I.T(Tp).A No.470/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. G. R. Reddy, Cit – Dr-I Heard On : 07.01.2016 Pronounced On : 10 .02.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT – DR-I

Section 10ASection 92C

…ilter was justified. 12. With regard to the turnover and abnormal profits filter, TPO was of the opinion that turnover filter had to be applied by virtue of the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Genisys Integrating Systems (India) P. Ltd, v. DCIT [ 53 SOT 159]. 13. CIT (A) also held that companies with abnormal losses had to be excluded from comparison since according to him, inclusion of such companies would erode proper comparability. By virtue of this direction, IT(TP)A.470/Bang/2013 Page - 7 CO No.150/Bang/2015 the following companies got technically excluded from the list of comparables selected…

Ion Trading India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is disposed off as above

ITA 1035/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Pardasani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

…Support was drawn from the following decisions : (a) Decision of ITAT in the case of appellant for A.Y. 2006-07 ITA No. 3856/D/2010 A.Y. 2006-07; 36 ITA No.1035/Del./2015 (b) Genisys Integrating Systems (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 715/53 SOT 159 (Bang.) (c) Centillium India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 34/53 SOT 145 (Bang.) (d) Kodiak Networks (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 18 taxmann.com 32/51 SOT 191 (Bang.) (e) Actis Advisers (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 5277 (Delhi) of 2011] 13. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We…