Orange Business Services India Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

91 Taxmann.com 286High Court2018#4570 most cited

What is Orange Business Services India Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT authority for?

A company is considered a comparable in transfer pricing analysis unless it is shown to be functionally incomparable.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Orange Business Services India Solutions · Wipro Technology Services Ltd. · comparable · functionally incomparable · transfer pricing · section 92 · multiple year data

Sections most often in play

Section 10DSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92BSection 92C(1)Section 92D

Issues it is cited on

section 92b(1)interest on outstanding receivablescaptive service providerworking capital adjustmentsection 92asafe harbour rulessection 92c(1)section 92brelated party transactionmultiple year datafunctional analysistransactional net margin method

Judgments citing Orange Business Services India Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Biocon Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 558/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Biocon The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner IT(TP)A No. of Income Tax, 2009-10 20th KM, Hosur 230/Bang/2014 Road, LTU, Electronic City, Bangalore. Bangalore – The Joint IT(TP)A No. 560100. Commissioner 2011-12 557/Bang/2016 PAN: of Income Tax, AAACB7461R LTU, Bangalore. M/s. Biocon Ltd., 20th KM, Hosur The Joint Road, IT(TP)A No. Commissioner Electronic City, 2011-12 558/Bang/2016 of Income Tax, Bangalore – LT…

Biocon Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 557/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Biocon The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner IT(TP)A No. of Income Tax, 2009-10 20th KM, Hosur 230/Bang/2014 Road, LTU, Electronic City, Bangalore. Bangalore – The Joint IT(TP)A No. 560100. Commissioner 2011-12 557/Bang/2016 PAN: of Income Tax, AAACB7461R LTU, Bangalore. M/s. Biocon Ltd., 20th KM, Hosur The Joint Road, IT(TP)A No. Commissioner Electronic City, 2011-12 558/Bang/2016 of Income Tax, Bangalore – LT…

Ge Capital Business Process Management Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 403/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 403/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) (Through Physical Hearing) Sbi Business Process Vs Dcit Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Earlier Known As C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, Ge Capital Business Process New Delhi Management Services Pvt. Ltd. 401, 402, 4Th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E- 1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, New Delhi Pan: Aabcg0222E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 403/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING) SBI Business Process Vs DCIT Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) earlier known as C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, GE Capital Business Process New Delhi Management Services Pvt. Ltd. 401, 402, 4th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E- 1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, New Delhi PAN: AABCG0222E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha & Bhuwan Dhoopar, Adv Respondent b…

M/S Salesforce.Com India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly these ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3286/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.3286/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.3286/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Salesforce.com India Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner of Ltd., Income-Tax, No.10, First Floor 12th Main Circle-6(1)(1), Palace Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Vasanthnagar, Bengaluru. PAN – AAJCS 3582 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sumeet Khurana, C.A Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 08-02-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 22-03-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been f…

Clsa India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 902/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2011 -12 Clsa India P. Ltd., Dcit Cir 4(1)(1), (Formerly Cls India Ltd) Mumbai Vs. 8/F, Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. Pan Aaacc2262K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr Mukesh ButaniFor Respondent: Ms Jothilakshmi Nayak
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “K”, MUMBAI Before Shri C N Prasad, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year : 2011 -12 CLSA India P. Ltd., DCIT Cir 4(1)(1), (Formerly CLS India Ltd) Mumbai Vs. 8/F, Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. PAN AAACC2262K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Mr Mukesh Butani, Ms Karishma Phatarphekar & Mr Harsh Shah Respondent By : Ms Jothilakshmi Nayak Date of Hearing :27.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orde…

Lionbridge Technologies P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 912/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm I.T.(Tp)A. No. 912/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Lionbridge Technologies Pvt. Ltd Asst Cit 15(2)(1) 3Rd Floor, Reliable Tech Park Off R. No. 403, 4Th Floor, Vs. Thane, Belapur Road Airoli, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Navi Mumbai – 400 708 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aabct3380Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) I.T.(Tp)A. No.1600/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst Cit 15(2)(1) M/S. Lionbridge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 403, 4Th Floor, Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Reliable Tech Park Off Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Thane, Belapur Road Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 708 Pan/Gir No. Aabct3380Q ( Appellant) : ( Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna Phatarphekar &For Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Wada & Shri
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…port of her aforesaid contention relied on the orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the following cases:- (i). Saxo India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 176 TTJ 540 (Del-Trib) (ii). Orange Business Service India solutions (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 71 Taxmann.com 206 (Del). Per contra, the Ld. D.R strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the aforesaid comparable had rightly been included as a comparable and could not be held to be functionally incomparable. 18. We have heard the authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authoritie…