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

Misys Software Solutions (I)P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1392/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sunder Rao, CIT (DR)

Section 92C

…he diversified high- end services, this company cannot be 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 Services (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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nokia India (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2380/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi06 Dec 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2003-04 Dcit, Circle 13(1) Vs. M/S Nokia India (P) Ltd. New Delhi 1 & 2 Floor, Tower A Sp Infocity Industrial Plot No.243 Udyog Vihar Ph I, Dundahera Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacn21790R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vikash Srivastava, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Hk Choudhary, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2017 Date Of 06.12.17 Pronouncement Order Per Beena A Pillaithe Present Appeal Has Been Filed By Revenue Against Order Dated 25/03/10 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-Xx, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2003-04 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.57,23,201/- Out Of Foreign Travelling Expenses Made By The Ao. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Restricting The Comparables To 11 Companies & In Rejecting The Remaining 39 Comparables Selected By The Tpo For The

Section 142(1)

…er. There is no mention in the language of the provisions 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 als…

American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1868/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiamerican Express (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Circle-2(2), Office Block, District Centre, New Delhi Saket, New Delhi Pan:Aaaca8163F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. American Express (India) Pvt. Circle-2(2), Ltd, New Delhi Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca8163F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri TM Shivakumar, CIT DR

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

…contentions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 377 ITR 533 in Rampgreen solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT, has specifically held that this comparable company is engaged in KPO services. Further, the special bench in case of Mersk Global Centre India Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT 147 ITD 83 has also held that the comparable is KPO and excluded this company. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court we direct exclusion of this comparable. 44. The next comparables objected are Mapple Solutions Ltd and Triton Corp Ltd wherein AR has stated that this company promoters are engaged in Fraud and therefor…

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

…l submissions and relevant record. At the out set, we note that the comparability 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.502 & 450/Bang/2015 Page 11 of 26 "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…

M/S Thomson Reuters India Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed/ treated as allowed

ITA 1206/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT - DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234B

…the co-ordinate bench it is clear that the comparability of this company was also considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com IT(TP)A.1206/Bang/2011 Page - 32 100/147 ITD 83. Thus in view of the decision of the co-ordinate bench, we find that this company is engaged in providing data analysis and process solutions and recognized as expert in market financial services, retail and manufacturing. Thus this company was providing complete business solutions which are in different field of services. Therefore this company c…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sharp Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1109/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Sheri M.K. Biju, Addl. CIT (ITAT)-3, DR

Section 10ASection 92C(2)

…accepted, the high profit making companies are also to be excluded. This is not the purpose for which TP analysis is being undertaken. Therefore, keeping the principles laid down by the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Maersk Global Centers (India) P.Ltd 43 Taxmann.com 100 Mumbai(SB), we, consider the same as comparable and retain it in the list. Sankhya Infotech Ltd., Thirdware Solution Ltd., & Tata Elxsi Ltd., : 10.5. These three companies are rejected as comparables on functionality in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited, in IT(TP)A No. 1302/Bang/2011 dt. 11-06-20…

Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1285/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

…. (supra) and the Tribunal has held 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. [2014] 147 ITD 83 (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. IT(TP)A No.1285/Bang/2011 Page 45 of 62 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 fin…

Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the cross appeals for the A

ITA 1247/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Ramadhyani,C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)

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

…so to be excluded. This is not the purpose for which TP analysis is being undertaken. Therefore, keeping the principles laid down by the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Maersk Global Centers 9 IT(TP)A Nos.1247/Bang/2011 & 34 & 40/Bang/2012 (India) P.Ltd 43 Taxmann.com 100 Mumbai(SB), we, consider the same as comparable and retain it in the list. Sankhya Infotech Ltd., Thirdware Solution Ltd., & Tata Elxsi Ltd., : 10.5. These three companies are rejected as comparables on functionality in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private Limited, in IT(TP)A No. 1302/Bang/2011 dt. 11-06- 2…

Aditya Birla Minacs Bpo P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 566/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.566/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Aditya Birla Minacs BPO Pvt. Ltd. Pirojshanagar Eastern Express Highway ……………. Appellant Vikhroli East, Mumbai 400 079 PAN – AAACC8690F v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar Revenue by : Shri N.K. Chand Date of Hearing – 20.07.2016 Date of Order – 18.10.2016 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Aforesaid appeal at the instance of the…

July Systems & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly

ITA 1574/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 234BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI S.K.YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (TP) A No.1574 (Bang) 2013 (Assessment year 2005-06) M/s July Systems & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., No.17/9C, 4th Floor, Maruthi Chambers, Rupena Agrahara, Hosur Rod, Bangalore -560 068 Pan No.AABCB6543M Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Bangalore Respondent Assessee by : Shri K.R.Pradeep, CA Revenue by : Shri AR V. Sreenivasan, JCIT Date of hearing : 23-08-2016 Date of pronouncement: : 18-10-2016 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM This is ass…

DCIT vs. M/S E4E Tech Support (India) Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and C

ITA 1044/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 133(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI S.K.YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (TP) A No.1044 (Bang) 2013 (Assessment year : 2005-06) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(3), Bangalore Appellant Vs M/s e4e Tech Support (India) Pvt. Ltd., Maruthi Chambers, No. 17/9B, Rupena Agrahara Hosur Road, Bangalore - 560068 PAN: AABCV1574A Respondent & C. O. No. 6/B/2016 in ITA No. 1044/B/2013 Assessment Year 2005 – 06 M/s e4e Tech Support (India) Pvt. Ltd., The DCIT, Vs Maruthi Chambers, Circle-11(3), Bangalore No. 17/9B, Rupena Agrahar…

Paradigm Geophysical (I) P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1878/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasad, आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.1878/M/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Paradigm The Dcit, Circle 9(2), बनाम/ Geophysical (I) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 614, B-Wing, Mumbai-400 020 Rupa Solitaire, Sector-1, Millennium Business Park, Thane-Belapur Road, Mahape, Navi Mumbai -400 710 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp 8903C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Niraj Sheth Shri Ayush Rajani Shri N.K. Chand ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth

Section 143(3)Section 14C(5)Section 92C(3)Section 92F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No.1878/M/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Paradigm The DCIT, Circle 9(2), बनाम/ Geophysical (I) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 614, B-Wing, Mumbai-400 020 Rupa Solitaire, Sector-1, Millennium Business Park, Thane-Belapur Road, Mahape, Navi Mumbai -400 710 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AACCP 8903C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri Niraj Sheth Shri…

Siemens Information Processing Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1359/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: P. Chandrashekar, JCIT (D.R)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “ B ” BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(T.P) A. No.1359/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s. Siemens Information Processing Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Services Pvt. Ltd., Tax, (Merged with Siemens Information Circle 12(3), Bangalore. Systems Ltd.) Ozone Manay Tech Park, Block A, 6th Floor, No.56/18 & 55/9, G.B. Palya, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 068 PAN AAFCS 1164H Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Sampath Raghunathan, Advocate. Respondent By : P. Chandrashekar, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearin…

Icc India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 25/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Icc India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, (Now Known As Mps Ltd.) Circle -11(1), Nsic/Stp Complex, C.R. Building, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaci1843G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Vandana Bhandari, Ca Respondent By: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Ms Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. DR

…5/Del/2012 Assessment Year 2007-08 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 [20141 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…

M/S E4E Tech Support (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1053/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandrashekar, CIT (D.R)

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 92C

…ch requires highly skilled employees. Thus, this company cannot be selected as comparable because their functions are different. He has relied upon the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India ) (P) Ltd V/s ACIT 147 ITD 83 and submitted that this company is rendering highly skilled services and cannot be compared with the service of ITES and accordingly, this company should be deleted from the set of comparables On the other hand, the ld. DR has relied upon the orders of authorities below and submitted that the TPO has considered the functional comparability at the…

Owens Corning (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8522/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 Owens Corning (India) P. Ltd. Dcit Cir 7(1) Alpha Bldg, 7Th Floor, Mumbai- बनाम/ Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Mumbai-400076 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaaco1739M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri Ketan Ved (Ar) Shri N.K. Chand (Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 07/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 22/04/2016

Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…the price of goods sold or transferred. In his support, he relied upon the judgment of Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Diageo India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT 34 taxmann.com 284 and of special bench in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) P. Ltd. ACIT 147 ITD 83 (Mumbai –Trib.) 3.3. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities as well as orders of the preceding and subsequent years as were shown to us. 3.4. The brief facts are that the assessee company is joint venture between M/s. Owens Corning, Inc. USA and M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. The assessee was engaged in manufacturing and trading…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 28/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. Geoge & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: None

Section 10A

…rgin. 8. We have heard the ld. DR and carefully perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that an identical issue was considered by the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) (P.) Ltd. V. ACIT, 147 ITD 83 (MUM)(SB) and the conclusion of the Special Bench recorded in paras 98 & 99 of the said order are as under:- “98. As noted by the Division Benches of the Tribunal in the cases discussed above, the OECD guidelines suggest quartile method which excludes the companies that fall in the extreme quartiles for comparability and there is deviation in thi…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Mcafee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both Assessee’s appeal and Revenue’s appeal are ‘partly allowed’

ITA 4/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

For Appellant: Shri Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, Addl.CIT

Section 10A

Mcafee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, both Assessee’s appeal and Revenue’s appeal are ‘partly allowed’

ITA 1388/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

For Appellant: Shri Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, Addl.CIT

Section 10A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Transcent Mt Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 2148/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2148/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2008-09)

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 92C

…rdingly rejected Mold Tek Technologies Ltd as a comparable. 10. Before us, the Ld. AR also relied upon the judgment in case of Maersk Global Centre India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax decided by Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai reported at (2014) 147 ITD 83 wherein the same company which was excluded by the CIT(A) in the present case, has been excluded by the Tribunal on the following reasoning: “Para 81. In so far as the case of Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd. is concerned, it is observed from the annual report of the said company for the Financial Year 2007-08 placed at page 139 to 151 of the paper boo…