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

147 ITD 83Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#1767 most cited

What is Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT authority for?

Maersk Global Centres (India) establishes criteria for excluding companies from the list of comparables in transfer pricing analysis, holding that functional dissimilarity or abnormally high profit margins (not reflective of normal business conditions) justify their exclusion.

65

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Maersk Global Centres (India) · transfer pricing · comparable companies · exclusion criteria · functional dissimilarity · abnormal profit margins · Section 92C(2) · ITAT Special Bench

Also reported as

43 Taxmann.com 100

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 10ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234B

Issues it is cited on

economic adjustmentsafe harbour rulessection 92b(1)safe harbourworking capital adjustmentsection 92c(2)tested partytransfer pricing orderrelated party transactioncomparable companiestransactional net margin methodassociated enterprises

Judgments citing 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

ITA 2533/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Chavali NarayanFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K. J
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…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

ITA 300/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Tolani & Sri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)

…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…

PRIMERA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 381/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri PVSS Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. L. Sunitha Rao, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 381/Hyd/2022 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Primera Medical Technologies Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad Circle-5(1), [PAN No. AAICP1509J] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा / Assessee by: Shri PVSS Prasad, AR राजस्‍व द्वारा / Revenue by: Smt. L. Sunitha Rao, CIT-DR सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 19/06/2024 घो…

CRISIL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 9(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 1114/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 7603/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) M/s. Crisil Limited v. Addl. CIT - 8(1) 8th Floor, Central Avenue Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai- 400020 Opp. D-Mart, Powai Mumbai- 400076 PAN: AAACT3151E (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NO. 1564/MUM2014 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. Crisil Limited v. Dy. CIT (OSD) – 8(1) Central Avenue Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai- 400020 Opp. D-Mart, Powai Mumbai- 400076 PAN:…

CRISIL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 7603/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) M/s. Crisil Limited v. Addl. CIT - 8(1) 8th Floor, Central Avenue Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai- 400020 Opp. D-Mart, Powai Mumbai- 400076 PAN: AAACT3151E (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NO. 1564/MUM2014 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. Crisil Limited v. Dy. CIT (OSD) – 8(1) Central Avenue Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai- 400020 Opp. D-Mart, Powai Mumbai- 400076 PAN:…

CRISIL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 7603/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 7603/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) M/s. Crisil Limited v. Addl. CIT - 8(1) 8th Floor, Central Avenue Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai- 400020 Opp. D-Mart, Powai Mumbai- 400076 PAN: AAACT3151E (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NO. 1564/MUM2014 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. Crisil Limited v. Dy. CIT (OSD) – 8(1) Central Avenue Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai- 400020 Opp. D-Mart, Powai Mumbai- 400076 PAN:…

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

ITA 292/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

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:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

…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…

MACQUARE CAPITAL SECURITIES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue ITA no-

ITA 5709/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms Jasmin AmasadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Sauel Pitta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

…e preceding financial year of 19.94% to 14.75% and in the succeeding financial year at 37.09%. b. The impugned order of the Tribunal following the decision of the Special Bench in Maersk Global Centers (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83 (Mum. - Trib.) rendered by the Tribunal on 7.3.2014 carried out further analysis and concluded that high profit margin of FCS Software Solutions Ltd. was not a normal business condition. Consequently, the same could not be considered as comparable.” 7.5.2. We heard the above-mentioned arguments of the ld Counsel. The ld DR did not make any strong…

DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. MACQUARIE CAPITAL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue ITA no-

ITA 5636/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms Jasmin AmasadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Sauel Pitta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

…e preceding financial year of 19.94% to 14.75% and in the succeeding financial year at 37.09%. b. The impugned order of the Tribunal following the decision of the Special Bench in Maersk Global Centers (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83 (Mum. - Trib.) rendered by the Tribunal on 7.3.2014 carried out further analysis and concluded that high profit margin of FCS Software Solutions Ltd. was not a normal business condition. Consequently, the same could not be considered as comparable.” 7.5.2. We heard the above-mentioned arguments of the ld Counsel. The ld DR did not make any strong…

FROST & SULLIVAN (INDIA) P.LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

…ess outsourcing (KPO) - whereas Respondent is engaged in BPO Services. (ii) The impugned order of the Tribunal place reliance upon 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. - Trib.), to hold that Eclerx Services Ltd., was engaged in providing KPO Services which is distinct from the BPO Services. Thus, excluded the same from the list of comparables. (iii) The impugned order of the Tribunal, in fact, relies upon the following extract in the Special Bench's decision of the Tribunal in Maersk Global Centres (India)…

M/S UL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

…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

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

…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

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

…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

ITA 335/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…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

ITA 178/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…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

ITA 513/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)

…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

ITA 307/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 244ASection 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…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

ITA 200/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 244ASection 92Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…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…

MORGAN STANLEY ADVANTAGE SERVICES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 9(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6523/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Morgan Stainley Advantage Services P. Ltd. Dy. Cit Range 9(2) Athena Building No.3, Sector 30, R. No. 218, Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Goregaon (W) Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 050 020

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Moti LalaFor Respondent: 03.02.2020

…essee as KPO, still he has upheld the benchmarking process undertaken by the transfer pricing officer. In this regard, the ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Maersk Global Centers (India )(P) Ltd Vs. ACIT (2014) 147 ITD 83. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the selection of four of the comparables by the Transfer Pricing Officer and he rejected the other two, accepting the assessee’s submission that they were functionally different. Accordingly, this lead to computation of arithmetic mean of 44.60 %. The detailed chart of computation under consideration is as under: Sr. Nam…

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, cross appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1379/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 92

…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…

Showing 1–20 of 65 · Page 1 of 4