Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

26 SOT 226Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#3716 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.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 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…

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 , 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…

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, 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…

APTARA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 291/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.291/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Aptara Technologies Private Limited, (Formerly: Maximize Learning Private Limited) F. No. A/16, Garnet Residency, S. No.9/13, Wanawadi, Pune- 411 040. Pan : Aaacc7416K .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)

…that the assessee was risk mitigated entity, whereas the comparables were risk bearing. He further stated that the assessee had furnished the working as per the decision of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 26 SOT 226 and the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 114 ITD 448. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in MSC Software Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.46/PUN/2013, relating to assessment year 2008-09, orde…

MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION INDIA P.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 379/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)

…tment on account of difference in the risk profile of comparable companies merits to be allowed while benchmarking the international transaction of assessee. The Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in the case of Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 26 SOT 226 has upheld 19 ITA No. 379/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 that the adjustment of risk to be computed as difference between the PLR and the risk free rate of turn. The assessee prepared a summary computation considering the aforesaid rule, which reads as under:- 33. Further, the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Sony India Pv t. Ltd. reported in 114…

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 77/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Smt. Rituparna Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37Section 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…

INFAC INDIA PVT. LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly

ITA 3195/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3195/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri. Sankara Narayana, S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, JCIT
Section 144C(13)

…and the assessee was catering only to primary market. Hence a fresh appraisal of these documentation will not help the assessee’s case in any manner. No doubt Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of 8. Philips Software Centre (P) Ltd vs. ACIT, (2008) 26 SOT 226 had approved adjustment being made to eliminate difference on account of difference in risk profile, working capital and accounting policies. Bench had allowed a flat risk judgment of 5.25% in the said case considering the difference in prime lending rate and prevailing bank rates. This order has been stayed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court vi…

STARENT NETWORKS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 164/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.164/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Starent Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.P-17, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Phase I, Hinjewadi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aaacn5937G Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 6, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT
Section 10ASection 144C(13)Section 271

…that the assessee was risk mitigated entity, whereas the comparables were risk bearing. He further stated that the assessee had furnished the working as per the decision of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 26 SOT 226 and the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 114 ITD 448. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in MSC Software Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.46/PUN/2013, relating to assessment year 2008-09, orde…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2