Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

26 SOT 226Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#2481 most cited

What is Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Working capital adjustment is permissible in transfer pricing, and the calculation of such adjustment should consider factors like the SBI PLR or base rate.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT · 26 SOT 226 · ITAT · transfer pricing · working capital adjustment · comparable companies · SBI PLR · base rate · OECD Guidelines

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32Section 54Section 92BSection 92C(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 192(1)section 40a(i)section 4(1)section 193multiple year datacaptive service providersection 92c(2)working capital adjustmentdisallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 197section 194hright to receive

Judgments citing Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

Vermeiren India Rehab Private Limited, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1315/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

…CBDT Circular No.12/2001 submitted that, the selection process, though subjective, was transparent and verifiable. In support of this contention, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the decisions of Philips Software Centre Private Limited [2008] 26 SOT 226; Order of ITAT, 12 ITA.No.1315 /Hyd./2024 Mumbai in the case of Indo American Jewellery Ltd., vide ITA.No.6194/Mum./2008; Mentor Graphics (Noida) Private Limited 109 ITD 101 and Sony India Private Limited [2007] 288 ITR 52. 8.1. With respect to the wrong application of 75% manufacturing income filter noted by the TPO, the Learned Counsel for the…

Assimilate Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle, 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is dismissed

ITA 5357/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassimilate Solutions India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Circle 1 (1), Chartered Accountants, New Delhi. C – 763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan :Aakca4501H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharam Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2021-22 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. M/S. Assimilate Solutions India Private Limited, The Assessee Was Incorporated On 19.04,2012 & Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…alsonot found in other comparables. All the comparables must face the same test on which comparability of aparticular comparable is being sought to be rejected…...”  ITAT Bangalore order in the case of Phillips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 119 TTJ 721. Relevant findings from para 5.25 of such order are reproduced below: “The assessee had identified the appropriate category in the database of companies and had used filters foreliminating companies that are not comparable to it. The filters used for eliminating companies are systembased (quantitative filters) and manual eliminations (qualitative…

Wns Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa Faceless Assessment Centre, Dilhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

…report issued by an expert used by the Assessee for determining arm's length price of the international transaction Mentor Graphics (Noida) Pvt. Ltd.'s case (109 ITD 101) Philips Software Centre Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [(2008) 119 TTJ 721 (Bangalore)] Sony India Private Limited, (2007) 288 ITR 52 Rajesh Kumar v. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs. ACIT (Transfer Pricing) W. P. (C) 6876/2008) Indo American Jewellery Limited (supra) The adjustments made by the learned TPO should be deleted as the learned TPO was unable to provide any cogent or sound reasoning for…

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…Reliance is also placed on the following decisions, which have upheld the working capital adjustment:- Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., 126 taxmann.com 29 Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 214 Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd., 26 SOT 226 Yahoo Software Development India P. Ltd., 115 taxmann.com 60 First Advantage Global Operating Centre Pvt. Ltd., TS-830-ITAT-2019 Inflow Technologies Pvt Ltd., ITA No.3338 & 3339/Bang/2018 48. The ld. DR submitted that it cannot be accepted that the assessee does not bear any significant risk. The assessee bears single customer risk, as its entire…

M/S Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 3168/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…TS-274- ITAT-2017 rejected the assessee's claim of risk adjustment by holding that such adjustment cannot be provided on arbitrary basis if the same cannot be quantified accurately. The ITAT distinguished the decision in case of Philips Software Centre [2008] 26 SOT 226 (Bangalore) and as regards the decision of ITAT in case of Hellosoft India [2013J 40 taxman.com 235 (Hyderabad - Trib.), the ITAT observed that "such sub silentio tribunal order is not a binding precedence". The ITAT relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 5 Taxman 1 (SC) and held that the adjustme…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Herbal Life International India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

ITA 2587/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…TS-274- ITAT-2017 rejected the assessee's claim of risk adjustment by holding that such adjustment cannot be provided on arbitrary basis if the same cannot be quantified accurately. The ITAT distinguished the decision in case of Philips Software Centre [2008] 26 SOT 226 (Bangalore) and as regards the decision of ITAT in case of Hellosoft India [2013J 40 taxman.com 235 (Hyderabad - Trib.), the ITAT observed that "such sub silentio tribunal order is not a binding precedence". The ITAT relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 5 Taxman 1 (SC) and held that the adjustme…

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2220/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…TS-274- ITAT-2017 rejected the assessee's claim of risk adjustment by holding that such adjustment cannot be provided on arbitrary basis if the same cannot be quantified accurately. The ITAT distinguished the decision in case of Philips Software Centre [2008] 26 SOT 226 (Bangalore) and as regards the decision of ITAT in case of Hellosoft India [2013J 40 taxman.com 235 (Hyderabad - Trib.), the ITAT observed that "such sub silentio tribunal order is not a binding precedence". The ITAT relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 5 Taxman 1 (SC) and held that the adjustme…

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2219/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…TS-274- ITAT-2017 rejected the assessee's claim of risk adjustment by holding that such adjustment cannot be provided on arbitrary basis if the same cannot be quantified accurately. The ITAT distinguished the decision in case of Philips Software Centre [2008] 26 SOT 226 (Bangalore) and as regards the decision of ITAT in case of Hellosoft India [2013J 40 taxman.com 235 (Hyderabad - Trib.), the ITAT observed that "such sub silentio tribunal order is not a binding precedence". The ITAT relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 5 Taxman 1 (SC) and held that the adjustme…

Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. National E- Assessment Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 488/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shashi Bhusan Shukla, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…ed to the profit margin of comparable companies as finally determined in accordance with the directions of this Panel. 14. The Revenue relied on the judicial decisions in Mentor Graphics (109 ITD 101), Sony India (288 ITR 52 (Delhi- IT AT), Philips Software (26 SOT 226) (Bangalore- ITAT), Mercer 8 Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt. Ltd. Consulting (India) Pvt. Ltd (Delhi ITAT), Sunlife India Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2015-TII-420-ITAT-DEL-TP). 15. In a word, the TPO is directed to give working capital adjustment by applying SBI PLR (as on 30th June of the relevant financial year) as the inter…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Cisco Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 508/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sri.Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzafar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

…the Appellant vis-à-vis of the comparable companies by placing reliance on the methodology of risk adjustment as stated in the decision of the Hon’ble Bangalore Tribunal in case of Philips Software Centre Private Limited vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (119 TTJ 721) (2008 26S0T226) as below. Average prime lending rate during FY 2008-09 (A)1 12.75 percent Average bank rate during FY 2008-09 (B) 6.00 percent Difference between the prime lending rate and bank rate C = (A – B) 6.75 percent Risk Adjustment (C) 6.75 percent The rates have been considered as per the details as available in the Economic Survey anal…

Cisco Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Apr 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sri.Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzafar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

…the Appellant vis-à-vis of the comparable companies by placing reliance on the methodology of risk adjustment as stated in the decision of the Hon’ble Bangalore Tribunal in case of Philips Software Centre Private Limited vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (119 TTJ 721) (2008 26S0T226) as below. Average prime lending rate during FY 2008-09 (A)1 12.75 percent Average bank rate during FY 2008-09 (B) 6.00 percent Difference between the prime lending rate and bank rate C = (A – B) 6.75 percent Risk Adjustment (C) 6.75 percent The rates have been considered as per the details as available in the Economic Survey anal…

Haldor Topsoe (I) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 654/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. H.P. Aggarwal, FCA, and Ms. Prashuka Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…g, capital adjustment, this DRP carries strength from the following judicial decisions. Mentor Graphics (109 ITD 101) • Sony India (288 ITR 52 (Delhi- ITAT) • Page 70 of 112 ITA No.-654/Del/2015. Haldor Topsoe India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Philips Software (26 SOT 226) (Bangalore- ITAT) • 8. Issue III Whether AO/TPO is right in denying any adjustment on account of risk, while working out the average margins of the comparables. 8.2 Having gone through the taxpayer's submission in this regard and having considered the facts and evidences on records and case laws relied upon both by the TPO and taxpayer in thi…

At&S India Private Limited, Karnataka vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 69/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am At&S India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 12A, Industrial Area, Nanjangud – 571 301 Kolkata – 700 069. Mysore District, Karnataka, India "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca 2930 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha & Ms. Rituparna Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37(1)Section 92C

…Mumbai - Trib.), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal interalia held that : "various benches of the Tribunal including Asstt. CIT v. MSS India (P.) Ltd.[2009] 32 SOT 132 (Pune) and Philips Software Centre (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT ITA No.179/Kol/2016 A.Y 2011-12 [2008] 26 SOT 226 (Bang.) have preferred the following of CUP method. It is obvious that when the price of similar goods or services as sold or provided to the non-AEs is available, such a price constitutes the best guide to find out whether the price charged or paid to the AEs is at ALP or not. It is more so when such comparable uncontrolled transactions is intern…

M/S Viavi Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

ITA 231/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…ested party and comparables, Ld. DRP directed the Ld. TPO to give the working capital adjustment. For this purpose Ld. DRP took strength from the decisions in the cases of Mentor graphics (109 ITD 101), Sony India (288 ITR 52 Delhi-ITAT) and Philips software (26 SOT 226 Bangalore-ITAT). 23. In view of the impact of the trade receivables, trade payables and inventory on the interest cost and depending upon the interest cost the margins change their volumes; we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the directions given by the Ld. DRP in respect of the working capital adjustment. We see no reason to interfer…

Viavi Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Jdsu India Pvt. Ltd), Gurgaon vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

ITA 1483/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…ested party and comparables, Ld. DRP directed the Ld. TPO to give the working capital adjustment. For this purpose Ld. DRP took strength from the decisions in the cases of Mentor graphics (109 ITD 101), Sony India (288 ITR 52 Delhi-ITAT) and Philips software (26 SOT 226 Bangalore-ITAT). 23. In view of the impact of the trade receivables, trade payables and inventory on the interest cost and depending upon the interest cost the margins change their volumes; we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the directions given by the Ld. DRP in respect of the working capital adjustment. We see no reason to interfer…

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above

ITA 1478/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 13(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M Ay: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 13(2) Vs. Jdsu India P.Ltd. New Delhi (Presently Known As Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd.) New Delhi Ay: 2012-13 Viavi Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 26(1) (Formerly Known As Jdsu India New Delhi P.Ltd.) Infotech Centre, 3Rd Floor 14/2 Milestone, Delhi Gurgaon Road Gurgaon 122 016 Pan: Aaacw0654M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Karhail, Adv. & Sh. Shatani K Chakraborty Department By : Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…ested party and comparables, Ld. DRP directed the Ld. TPO to give the working capital adjustment. For this purpose Ld. DRP took strength from the decisions in the cases of Mentor graphics (109 ITD 101), Sony India (288 ITR 52 Delhi-ITAT) and Philips software (26 SOT 226 Bangalore-ITAT). 23. In view of the impact of the trade receivables, trade payables and inventory on the interest cost and depending upon the interest cost the margins change their volumes; we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the directions given by the Ld. DRP in respect of the working capital adjustment. We see no reason to interfer…

Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. M/S Timken Engineering

ITA/253/2012HC Karnataka10 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260Section 260ASection 92

…1/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.Nos.253-254/2012 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12(3), BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (By Mr. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.) AND: M/S. TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD., Sy.No.(s), 39(P), 41(P), 42(P) ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE II DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HO…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Genisys Intergrating Systems

ITA/17/2012HC Karnataka09 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2Section 260Section 260ASection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…he proviso to sec.92C(2) before making adjustments for the transfer price. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1.M/s Sap Labs India Pvt.Ltd., Vs ACIT 2010-TII-44 ITAT-BANG-TP 2.Philips Software Centre Pvt.Ltd., 26 SOT 226 3. MSS India Pvt.Ltd., 32 SOT 132 4. Customer Services India Pvt.Ltd., Vs ACIT 30 SOT 486 5. Skoda Auto India Pvt.Ltd., Vs ACIT 2009-TIOL-214- ITAT-PUNE 6. Development Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Vs DCIT 23 SOT 455 7. Sony India Pvt.Ltd., 315 ITR 150 8. Cumins India Ltd., Vs DCIT ITA NO.277 & 1412/PN/07 9. TNT India Pvt.Ltd., Vs ACIT 10…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Sharp Softwa

ITA/457/2017HC Karnataka02 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 260

…ilips Software Centre Private Date of Judgment 02-07-2018, ITA No.457/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 & another Vs. M/s Sharp Software Development India (P) Ltd. 10/15 Limited vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax [119 TTJ 721] [2008 26 SOT 226] as below: Average prime lending rate during FY 2006-07 [A] 11.88 percent Average bank rate During FY 2006-07 [B] 6.00 percent Difference between the prime lending Rate and bank rate C [A – B] 5.88 percent Risk Adjustment [C] 5.88 percent However, the TPO did not provide/ make any risk-adjustment to th…

M/S. Exxonmobil Gas (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 2702/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2009-10 Exxonmobil Gas (India) Private Dcit, Limited, Circle-11(1), Vs. 11033, Lane No.3, Doriwalan, Room No.405, C.R. Building, New Delhi Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)

…so on a markup basis. The Ld. CIT-DR defended the addition. In reply, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, placed reliance upon the decisions in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2008) 114 ITD 448 (Del.), Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2008) 119 TTJ 721 (Bangalore), Mentorgraphics (Noida)(P.) Ltd. vs CIT (2007) 109 ITD 101(Del.), Kodiak Networks India Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 52 SOT 189 (Bangalore) and E-Gain Communications Pvt. Ltd. 118 TTJ 354 (Pune). 4. If the observation made in the assessment order, conclusion drawn by the Ld. DRP and the assertions made by the respective counsel, if ke…

Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (26 SOT 226) — Cited in 47 Judgments | BharatTax