Global Logic India P Ltd. v. DCIT

45 SOT 172Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#20887 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing Global Logic India P Ltd. v. DCIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Citicorp Services India Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4609/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)

…he ITAT Delhi in the case of Actis Advisers P Ltd Vs DCIT (TS-688-ITAT-2012(Del)-TP), which has been further upheld by the ITAT Delhi in the case of Global Logic India P Ltd Vs DCIT 12 taxmann.com 295, the ITAT Hyderabad in the case of M/s ADP Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT 45 SOT 172, the ITAT Mumbai in the case of CAIT VS M/s Hapag Lloyd Global Services P Ltd (TS-47-ITAT-2013(Mum)-TP) and the ITAT Delhi in the case of M/s Nokia India (P.) Ltd Vs DCIT Circle -13(1), New Delhi (52 taxmann.com 492 (Delhi - Trib.) 2C) Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in rejecting the quantitative and qualitative f…

Scancafe Digital Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 502/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.502/Bang/2015 (Assessment year: 2010-11) and Cross Objn.No.139/Bang/2015 (In IT(TP)A No.502/Bang/2015) (Assessment year: 2010-11) M/s.Scancafe Digital Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Neil Rao Towers, Plot No.118, Road No.03, EPIP Phase-1, Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru-560066 … Appellant PAN:AAKCS 5398 E Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent AND IT(TP)A No.450/Bang/2015 (Assessment year: 2010-11) (By the Revenue) Assessee by : S…

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is hereby treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 864/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 15(2)(1), Unit No.702, 7Th Floor, 4Th Room No.403, Floor, A – Wing, Hon’Ble Supreme Aayakar Bhavan, Court Business Park, Vs. M.K. Road, Behind Lake Castle, Mumbai - 400020 Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan: Aaccn0274A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.R Ms. Chandni Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…a functional comparable becomes a tainted comparable due to a very high percentage of significant related party transaction. The Tribunal had also taken into consideration the case laws namely in the case of “Soni India Pvt. Ltd.” 114 ITD 448; “ADP Pvt. Ltd.” 45 SOT 172 Hyderabad; “Global Logic India P. Ltd.” (2011) 46 SOT 285 and observed that in the said cases 15% and 25% related party transactions respectively were held to be acceptable which position has been affirmed in the order of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Hapeg Lloyd Global Services” wherein also related party transactions to t…

M/S. Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6638/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Lower Ground Floor, C-4/5, New Delhi. Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi (Pan: Aadcp7362G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Ms. Shweta Kashyap, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.10.2013 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) In Relation To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ao") Erred On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Making An Addition To The Total Income Of The Appellant Amounting To Rs. 95,945,630/- In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("Drp") Upholding The Adjustment To The Transfer Price Proposed By The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Tpo").

For Appellant: S/sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…Securites Limities. 11 The ld. AR submitted that related part transactions (RPT) of the company are 43.02% which being more than 25%, the company cannot be selected as appropriate comparable relying on the decision in the case of ADP Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2011] 45 SOT 172 (Hyd.). He further submitted that this company is also one of the SEBI registered Category-I, Merchant Bankers and engaged in providing diversified financial services in the nature of debt and equity related market operations, underwriting, equity broking and commission of mutual funds, merchant banking, loan syndication etc., so, it cannot be sel…