Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

M/S. Ntt Data Global Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 5, Bangalore

…parable company cannot be excluded for the reason of high or low turnover or high or low profit margin. In reaching this conclusion, the Delhi bench also considered a special bench order passed in the case of Maersk Global Centre India Pvt Ltd. Vs ACIT (2014) 147 ITD 83 (BOM)(SB)'. Similarly, the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in Capgemini, took note of the ITAT, Bangalore decision in Genisys (supra), and other Tribunal decisions to conclude (in Para 5.3.5 & 5.3.6) that there was no such correlation of profit margins with the turnover of the IT companies, which is primarily based on skilled manpower and related costs, a…

Ims Health Analytics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2022

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.300/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2017-18 IQVIA Analytics Services Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as IMS Health Analytics Services Pvt. Ltd.,) Omega 9th Floor, Embassy Techsquare, Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kadubeesanahalli, Bengaluru - 560 008. PAN – AADCP 1532 C APPELLANT Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1)(1), Bengaluru. NFAC, Delhi. RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ajit Tolani & Sri Darpan Kriplani, CA Revenue by : Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR) Date…

Fireeye Cybersecurity Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 292/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mandiant Cyber Security Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Fireeye The Deputy Cybersecurity Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 5, Front Wing Circle – 3(1)(1), Salarpuria Infinity, Vs. Bengaluru. 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan: Aaccf1341A Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Passed By National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 30/04/2021 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 292/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Mandiant Cyber security Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as FireEye The Deputy Cybersecurity Pvt. Commissioner of Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 5, Front Wing Circle – 3(1)(1), Salarpuria Infinity, Vs. Bengaluru. 2nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. PAN: AACCF1341A APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee by Senior Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vilas Shinde, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 26-09-2022 Date of P…

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

…ld that even the company's functions are different, therefore it cannot be considered as comparable, following the order of the Mumbai Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83 (Mum.) (SB). Therefore, this company may be excluded from the list of comparables. 38. The ld. DR simply placed reliance upon the order of the AO. 39. Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities in the light of Tribunal's finding in the case of Stream International Services (P) Ltd. (supra), we find that the profile of this company w…

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

…ld that even the company's functions are different, therefore it cannot be considered as comparable, following the order of the Mumbai Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83 (Mum.) (SB). Therefore, this company may be excluded from the list of comparables. 38. The ld. DR simply placed reliance upon the order of the AO. 39. Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities in the light of Tribunal's finding in the case of Stream International Services (P) Ltd. (supra), we find that the profile of this company w…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

…ld that even the company's functions are different, therefore it cannot be considered as comparable, following the order of the Mumbai Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83 (Mum.) (SB). Therefore, this company may be excluded from the list of comparables. 38. The ld. DR simply placed reliance upon the order of the AO. 39. Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities in the light of Tribunal's finding in the case of Stream International Services (P) Ltd. (supra), we find that the profile of this company w…

Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

…missions and relevant record. At the out set, we note that the ..31- pparability of M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd. has been examined by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83 (Mum.) (SB) in paras 82 and 83 as under: IT(TP)A Nos.178 & 335/Bang/2015 Page 17 of 23 "82. In so far as M/s. eClerx Services Limited is concerned, the relevant information is available in the form of annual report for financial year 2007-08 placed at pages 166 to 183 of the paper book. A perusal of the same shows that the said company provides…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

…missions and relevant record. At the out set, we note that the ..31- pparability of M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd. has been examined by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83 (Mum.) (SB) in paras 82 and 83 as under: IT(TP)A Nos.178 & 335/Bang/2015 Page 17 of 23 "82. In so far as M/s. eClerx Services Limited is concerned, the relevant information is available in the form of annual report for financial year 2007-08 placed at pages 166 to 183 of the paper book. A perusal of the same shows that the said company provides…

Vwr Lab Products Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.513/Bang/2015 Assessmentyear:2010-11

…ld that even the company's functions are different, therefore it cannot be considered as comparable, following the order of the Mumbai Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83 (Mum.) (SB). Therefore, this company may be excluded from the list of comparables. 38. The ld. DR simply placed reliance upon the order of the AO. 39. Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities in the light of Tribunal's finding in the case of Stream International Services (P) Ltd. (supra), we find that the profile of this company w…

Akamai Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the Cross

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

…ld that even the company's functions are different, therefore it cannot be considered as comparable, following the order of the Mumbai Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83 (Mum.) (SB). Therefore, this company may be excluded from the list of comparables. 38. The ld. DR simply placed reliance upon the order of the AO. 39. Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities in the light of Tribunal's finding in the case of Stream International Services (P) Ltd. (supra), we find that the profile of this company w…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Akamai Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the Cross

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

…ld that even the company's functions are different, therefore it cannot be considered as comparable, following the order of the Mumbai Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83 (Mum.) (SB). Therefore, this company may be excluded from the list of comparables. 38. The ld. DR simply placed reliance upon the order of the AO. 39. Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities in the light of Tribunal's finding in the case of Stream International Services (P) Ltd. (supra), we find that the profile of this company w…

Sungard Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, cross appeals are partly allowed

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

…list of comparables. Therefore, the mere high profit margin or loss cannot be considered as a parameter or criteria for selection of comparable companies as held by the special bench of this Tribunal in case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT (147 ITD 83) (Special Bench, Mumbai). 11. In Assessee’s appeal, the assessee in seeking exclusion of 10 companies out of 17 selected by the TPO. At the time of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee has said at bar that the assessee does not press ground no. 5 wherein the assessee is seeking inclusion of certain companies in the set of comparables. Thus in view…