L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE & ORS. v. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD.

406 ITR 513High Court2018#2396 most cited

What is L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE & ORS. v. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD. authority for?

For comparability analysis in transfer pricing, giant companies with significantly higher turnover and brand value cannot be compared with small-sized companies, and such companies should be excluded from the comparable set.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Softbrands India · 406 ITR 513 · transfer pricing comparability · turnover filter · brand value exclusion · giant company comparison · small company comparables · Section 260A scope · perverse finding of fact · high court appellate powers

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 139(1)Section 10(B)(2)Section 12(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 246a(1)(a)section 80ia(4)(i)section 2(45)section 34(1)(iv)captive service providersection 34(1)far analysisinitial assessment yearsection 143(1)(a)(iv)section 260section 36(1)(iv)section 260a

Judgments citing L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE & ORS. v. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD.

Smart Cube India Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1178/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)

…is context it requires to be noted that the ITAT also referred to the decision of this Court CIT v. Agnity India Technologies Private Limited (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 289. 26. The Court may also note that the Karnataka High Court has in PCIT v. Softbrands (2018) 406 ITR 513 (Kar) noted as under: "48. The Tribunal of course is expected to act fairly, reasonably and rationally and should scrupulously avoid perversity in their Orders. It should reflect due application of mind when they assign reasons for returning the particular findings. 49. For instance, while dealing with comparables of filters, if unequals like sof…

The Director of Income-Tax vs. M/S Sasken Communication

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/241/2011HC Karnataka10 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 28Section 5(2)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.241 OF 2011 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONRASHTROTHANA BHAVANNRUPATHUNGA ROAD,BANGALORE 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,WARD 19 (2)RASHTROTHANA BHAVANNRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE ... APPELLANTS (By SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NO.139/25, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT, RING ROAD, BANGALORE ... RE…

Evalueserve.Com P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5148/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Antil. Sr. DR

…is context it requires to be noted that the ITAT also referred to the decision of this Court CIT v. Agnity India Technologies Private Limited (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 289. 26. The Court may also note that the Karnataka High Court has in PCIT v. Softbrands (2018) 406 ITR 513 (Kar) noted as under: "48. The Tribunal of course is expected to act fairly, reasonably and rationally and should scrupulously avoid perversity in their Orders. It should reflect due application of mind when they assign reasons for returning the particular findings. 49. For instance, while dealing with comparables of filters, if unequals like s…

Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1814/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantita No. 1814/Del/2017, A.Y. 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 144

…is context it requires to be noted that the ITAT also referred to the decision of this Court CIT v. Agnity India Technologies Private Limited (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 289. 26. The Court may also note that the Karnataka High Court has in PCIT v. Softbrands (2018) 406 ITR 513 (Kar) noted as under: 44 ITA No. 1814/Del/2017) "48. The Tribunal of course is expected to act fairly, reasonably and rationally and should scrupulously avoid perversity in their Orders. It should reflect due application of mind when they assign reasons for returning the particular findings. 49. For instance, while dealing with comparables of f…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Gurgaon vs. M/S Equant Solutions India Pvt Ltd

Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms

ITA/419/2016HC Punjab & Haryana30 Oct 2019

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

…ase of CIT Vs. PTC Software 395 ITR 176 and in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Barclays Technology Centre India Pvt. Ltd. 409 ITR 108 and by the Karnataka High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd. 406 ITR 513. ITA No. 405 of 2016 26. The appeal filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2011-12 has assailed the order of the ITAT dated 31st May, 2016 whereby the exclusion of comparables mentioned below is disputed: i) M/s. Persistent Systems Ltd. ii) Wipro Technology Services Ltd. iii) Zylog Systems Ltd. iv) Accentia Technology Ltd. v) I…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

ITTA/580/2016HC Telangana28 Nov 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

ITTA/559/2015HC Telangana16 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Sri S.Venkat Reddy, (PAN ALAPS4009A)

ITTA/501/2013HC Telangana24 Oct 2013