Genpact India v. CIT

203 Taxmann.com 632Reported decision#23664 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2019.

Judgments citing Genpact India v. CIT

IBM DAKSH BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6471/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 6471/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ibm Daksh Business Process Services Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Birla Tower, 1St Floor, 25 Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D Assessee By : Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv., Sh. Suvinay Kr. Dash, Adv. & Sh. Parichay Solanki, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Drp-I, New Delhi Dated 03.09.2012 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground No. 1 Of The Appeal Of The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. Assessment & Reference To Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law A) The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax — 11(1) [‘Dcit” Or 'Ao’ / Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Tpo-I (2)], New Delhi ['Acit' Or Tpo'] Erred In Law & On Facts In Making Addition Of Inr 314,525,713 To The Total Income Of The Appellant On 2 Ibm Daksh Business Process Services India Pvt. Ltd. Account Of Adjustment To The Arm'S Length Price With Respect To Information Technology (‘It’) Enabled Services Of The Appellant With Its Associated Enterprises Other Than Ibm World Trade Corporation (‘Ibm Wtc’). B) The Ao/Tpo Erred In Law & On Facts As He Failed To Establish That The Appellant Shifted Profits Outside India.” 3. This Ground Of Appeal Is General In Nature & Hence Does Not Require Separate Adjudication By Us.

For Appellant: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 920(2)

…enses of Rs.19,08,87,950/- paid in foreign currency from export turnover. 23. The AR of the assessee submitted that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Genpact India Vs CIT reported in 203 Taxmann.com 632 wherein it was held as under: “14. Having considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, we are in complete agreement with the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery(supra). In order to avoid prolixity, we set out the relevant portion of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Gem Plus Jewe…

M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 1560/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

For Appellant: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR

…tion allowable under section 10A of the Act.” 25. For assessment year 2010-11, the AR of the assessee submitted that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Genpact India Vs CIT reported in 203 Taxmann.com 632 wherein it was held as under: “14. Having considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, we are in complete agreement with the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery(supra). In order to avoid prolixity, we set out the relevant portion of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Gem Plus Jewe…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2495/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

For Appellant: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR

…tion allowable under section 10A of the Act.” 25. For assessment year 2010-11, the AR of the assessee submitted that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Genpact India Vs CIT reported in 203 Taxmann.com 632 wherein it was held as under: “14. Having considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, we are in complete agreement with the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery(supra). In order to avoid prolixity, we set out the relevant portion of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Gem Plus Jewe…

Genpact India v. CIT (203 Taxmann.com 632) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax