How many judgments cite Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT?

65 judgments on BharatTax cite Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (147 ITD 83), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 10A, Section 139(5), Section 143(3), Section 144C, Section 144C(13).

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

147 ITD 83Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#1746 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 10A Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C Section 144C(13)Section 14A Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

economic adjustment safe harbour rules section 92b(1)safe harbour working capital adjustment section 92c(2)tested party transfer pricing order related party transaction comparable companies transactional net margin method associated enterprises

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

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sungard Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, cross appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1106/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…

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

In the result, cross appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1041/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

Western Union Services India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7619/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Western Union Services Vs Dy.Cit, Cir.10(1), India Private Ltd, Mumbai Fortune 2000 Building, Ground Floor, Unit No. G- 101, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan : Aaacw5943M Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI Before Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM) Western Union Services Vs Dy.CIT, Cir.10(1), India Private Ltd, Mumbai Fortune 2000 Building, Ground Floor, Unit No. G- 101, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 PAN : AAACW5943M APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Arijit Chakravarty & Shri Abhishek Tilak AR’s Respondent by Shri Udal Raj Singh CIT-DR Date of hearing 09-01-2020 Date of pronouncement 15-01-2020 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, JM : 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the assessment order passed under sectio…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Netlink Software (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6782/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Netlink Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, S.P. Nagrath & Co. Llp, Ward-18(1), A-380, Ground Floor, Cr Building, Defence Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccn5731A Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Vs. Netlink Software Pvt. Ltd., Ward-18(1), S.P. Nagrath & Co. Llp, Cr Building, A-380, Ground Floor, New Delhi. Defence Colony, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccn5731A (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate Deptt. By : Ms Nidhi Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 253Section 92C

…as it requires only broad function and product/service comparability in comparison to other traditional transactional method. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 147 ITD 83, the ld. counsel drew the attention of the Bench to para 62 of the order which reads as under:- “62. At the time of hearing before us, Shri Porus Kaka has relied on the guidelines given by the OECD in section B-3.1 (para 2.68 to 2.75) in respect of the comparability standard to be applied to the Transactional Net Margin Method. However, as rightl…

M/S Sterling Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1220/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (Successor In Interest To Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/O Ibm India Pvt.Ltd,, Iii Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 Pan No.Aabct3727D/Ta-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 143Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IT(TP)A No.1220(B)/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “ C ”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (successor in interest to Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/o IBM India Pvt.Ltd,, III Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 PAN No.AABCT3727D/TA-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant by : Sri Padamchand Khincha, CA Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Kum…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Trizetto Services India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 667/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.667/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. Trizetto Services India Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, “D” Building, Weikfield, It-Citi Infopark, Nagar Road, Pune-411014. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aabct8862F Revenue By : Ms. Amrita Mishra Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Drp-3, Mumbai Dated 14.12.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- Whether The Drp Was Justified In Rejecting Eclerx Services Ltd. “1. Treating It As Kpo Without Appreciating That Kpo & Bpo Companies Both Fell Under Broader Ites Category & In Reality There Is Seamlessness In Ites Functions & Comparability Analysis Is Based On Functions, Assets & Risk. 2. Whether The Drp Was Right In Law & On Facts In Directing Tpo To Re- Compute The Operating Profit Margin Of The Assessee Without Considering The One Time Price Rebate Of Rs.5,32,10,455/-.” 3. Briefly Stated The Relevant Facts Include That The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Bpo Services I.E. Remote Processing Applications Including

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Ms. Amrita Mishra

Section 92C

…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 7 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 (Indi…

Gts E-Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1231/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1231/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Gts E-Services Private Ltd. Income Tax Officer-15(1)(4) 103, A-Wing Kensinton Room No.15B, Ground Floor बनाम/ Hiranandani Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Hiranandani Builder Sez Mumbai-400 020. Powai, Mumbai-400 076. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-8662-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Patel- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Agarwal – Addl. Cit-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 26/06/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Patel- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Agarwal – Addl. CIT-Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…cause the functional profile of the comparable entity falls under the category of ITeS services, the same would not make these entities comparable to assessee as held by Mumbai Tribunal (Special Bench) in Maersk Global Centers (India) Pvt. Ltd. V/s ACIT [2014 43 Taxmann.com 100], Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Aptara Technology Pvt. Ltd. [2018 92 Taxmann.com 240] & Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT [2015 60 Taxmann.com 355]. 4.2 In the above background, Ld. AR argued for exclusion of 4 entities namely (i) Accentia Technologies Ltd. (ii) Universal Print Systems Ltd. (iii) BNR…

M/S Informatica Business Solutions P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(4), Bangalore

ITA 1294/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Smt. Kabila .H, JCIT (DR)

…e considered as functionally comparable with the assessee. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83. (i) On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has submitted that this company is undisputedly in the business of ITeS and therefore, the nomenclature that of KPO will not make it functionally IT(TP)A Nos.1285 & 1294/Bang/2014 Page 22 of 40 different from the assessee. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. (ii) W…

Deputycommissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Informatica Business P Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 1285/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Smt. Kabila .H, JCIT (DR)

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore

ITA 1223/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryavanshi, Addl. CIT (DR)

…n support of his contention, he has ITA No. 1223/Bang/2018 & C.O. No. 85/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 12 relied upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83. (i) On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has submitted that this company is undisputedly in the business of ITeS and therefore, the nomenclature that of KPO will not make it functionally different from the assessee. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. (ii) We have considered the rival submissions as well as r…

Indecomm Global Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s C

ITA 553/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR-I

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…submissions 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. C/T12014] 43 taxmann.com 100/147 ITD 83 (Mum.) (SB) in paras 82 and 83 as under: "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 page 166 to 183 of the paper book. A perusal of the same shows that the said company provides data analytics and data process solutions to some…

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Epcos Ferrites Ltd., (Since Merged With M/S. Epcos India P. Ltd., Nadia

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed, except other ground no

ITA 1597/KOL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr.A.L.Saini, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Rituparna SinhaFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, CIT, ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(7)Section 40A(9)Section 43BSection 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T. Varkey, JM & Dr.A.L.Saini, AM ITA No.1598/Kol/2017 (A.Y: 200304) D.C.I.T, Cir11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Epcos Ferrites Ltd. (since merged with M/s. EpcosIndia Pvt. Ltd) PAN: AAACI6950Q (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Assessee) .. Assessee/Revenue by : Dr. P.K. Srihari, CIT, ld.DR Assessee/Assessee by : Smt. Rituparna Sinha, Shri Anup Sinha सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 17/12/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned two appeals filed by the Revenue, pertaining to asses…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Microfoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 691/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…r. There is no mention in the language of the provision for the exclusion of potential comparable companies simply on account of high or low turnover or profit rate. The Special bench of the tribunal in Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. VS. ACIT (2014) 147 ITD 83 (Mum)(SB) has also held that potential comparables cannot be excluded merely on the ground that their profit is abnormally higher. There can be no justifiable reason to exclude such high or low profit companies unless it is shown that such high or low profit was due to abnormal factors. Same logic applies to the high or low turnover companies a…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Wns Business Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 919/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep SinghFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr. D.R

Section 10ASection 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “I-1” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.919/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2008-2009 M/s. WNS Business Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., The ACIT, Circle-18(1), vs Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Room No.211A, C.R. Complex, LBS Marg, Building, New Delhi. Pirojshan Nagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai – 400 079. PAN AABCT8951H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr. D.R. For Assessee : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate. Date of Hearing : 30.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2018 ORDER PER BHAVNESH…

M/S. Cengage Learning India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 6484/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rs Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2008-09

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…tise is evident from the company's own reply to the notice u/s 133(6) which is placed at pages 976 to 979 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The Hon'ble Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of Maersk Global Centre (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 147 ITD 83/43 taxmann.com 100 (Mum.) had excluded Eclerx Services Pvt. Ltd. from the list of comparables for the reason that it is providing high end services involving specialised knowledge and domain expertise and same cannot be compared with companies which are mainly engaged in providing low end services to group companies. The relevant finding of the Ho…

Keane Worldzen India (Pvt.) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5339/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2007-08 Ntt Data Global Delivery Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2) Services Ltd. New Delhi (Formerly Known As Keane Worldzen (I) Pvt.Ltd.) Splendor Trade Tower 2Nd, 3Rd, 4Th, 5Th, 6Th & 7Th Floor Golf Course Extension Road Sector 65, Village Tigra Gurgaon Haryana 122 001 Pan: Aaacw3622M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. S.D.Kapila, Adv. Department By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2018

For Appellant: Sh. S.D.Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(2)

…tise is evident from the company's own reply to the notice u/s 133(6) which is placed at pages 976 to 979 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The Hon'ble Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of Maersk Global Centre (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 147 ITD 83/43 taxmann.com 100 (Mum.) had excluded Eclerx Services Pvt. Ltd. from the list of ITA 5339/Del/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 NTT Data Global Delivery Services P Ltd.(Formerly Keane Worldzen (I) Pvt.Ltd. ) vs. ITO comparables for the reason that it is providing high end services involving specialised knowledge and domain expertise and same cannot be compared w…

Morgan Stanley Asia ( Singapore) Pte., Mumbai vs. DDIT I(It) 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are party allowed

ITA 4365/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Sunil M. Lala &For Respondent: Saurabh Deshpande, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 9(1)(vii)

…e chargeable under the head "salary" and therefore, it cannot be termed as "fees for technical services". 12. Similarly, the co-ordinate Bench of this tribunal in the case of Addl. Director of Income Tax (IT) vs. Mark & Spencer Reliance India (P) Ltd. (2014) 147 ITD 83 (Mum) has considered this issue on identical facts and held as under:- “13. It is clear from the order of the learned CIT(A) that it has followed the decision of Special Bench of this Tribunal in case of Mahendra & Mahendra and held that the payment are not in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (FTS). Thus in the absence of make available…

Morgan Stanley Asia ( Sinapore) Ptc., Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are party allowed

ITA 8595/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Sunil M. Lala &For Respondent: Saurabh Deshpande, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 9(1)(vii)

DCIT, Noida vs. M/S. Adobe System India Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are

ITA 6287/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12 Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Circle- 1, Plot No.A5, Sector 132, Noida. Vs. Noida.

Section 10ASection 154Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, Circle- 1, Plot No.A5, Sector 132, Noida. Vs. Noida. PAN : AACCA2982J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2011-12 DCIT, Circle- 1, Adobe System India Pvt. Ltd., Noida. Plot No.1, 1A, City Centre, Vs. Sector- 25A, Noida. PAN : AACCA2982J (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri Nageshwar Rao, Adv. : Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIR-DR Department by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR Date of hearing :…

M/S Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are

ITA 6165/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12 Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Circle- 1, Plot No.A5, Sector 132, Noida. Vs. Noida.

Section 10ASection 154Section 92C