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

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

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…

Madhu Jayanti International Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 214/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 214/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7502 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akash Mansinka, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

…could have carried fresh search only if the comparables drawn by the taxpayer was insufficient or had other deficiency. " The above mentioned judgment has also been supported by the Bangalore ITAT in the case of Philips Software Centre Private Ltd -vs- ACIT [119 TTJ 721], wherein the ITAT held as follows: . 'Circular No. 14/2001 issued by the CBDT is binding upon the TPO ………………….. The TP study cannot be ignored by the TPO in absence of any deficiency or insufficiency" 15 Madhu Jayanti International Ltd. A.Yr.2011-12 In addition, transfer pricing in India being in a nascent stage, the Company submits that it…

Nomura Research Institute Financial Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

….A. No. 645/Hyd/2009) 4. M/s Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (I.T.A. No. 5637/Del/2011) 5. M/s Sony India (P) Limited, Appellant vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Respondent, and Vice Versa 6. Philips Software Center Private Limited vs. ACIT (119 TTJ 721) 49. It cannot be said as a rule that no risk adjustment can be given. It can also not be said that the risk adjustment should be given in all cases. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case. As far as the present case is concerned the Assessee is a captive service provider and dependent on its associate enterprises and therefore there…

DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Nomura Research Institute & Financial Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 587/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

….A. No. 645/Hyd/2009) 4. M/s Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (I.T.A. No. 5637/Del/2011) 5. M/s Sony India (P) Limited, Appellant vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Respondent, and Vice Versa 6. Philips Software Center Private Limited vs. ACIT (119 TTJ 721) 49. It cannot be said as a rule that no risk adjustment can be given. It can also not be said that the risk adjustment should be given in all cases. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case. As far as the present case is concerned the Assessee is a captive service provider and dependent on its associate enterprises and therefore there…

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

ITA 3811/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…the proviso to section 92C(2). 2.5 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the jurisdictional Tribunals judgment in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (114 ITD 448) (Del.) and that of the Bangalore tribunal in the case of Philips Software Vs. ACIT (119 TTJ 721) for allowing the 5% variation 2 I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 adjustment. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,025,050 being provision for transit breakages. 3.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law grossly erred on fac…

Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra,Adv.,Harpreet Singh, Adv., Anmol Anand, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR, B. Ramanjaneyulu, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…the proviso to section 92C(2). 2.5 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the jurisdictional Tribunals judgment in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (114 ITD 448) (Del.) and that of the Bangalore tribunal in the case of Philips Software Vs. ACIT (119 TTJ 721) for allowing the 5% variation 2 I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 adjustment. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,025,050 being provision for transit breakages. 3.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law grossly erred on fac…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2770/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…the proviso to section 92C(2). 2.5 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the jurisdictional Tribunals judgment in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (114 ITD 448) (Del.) and that of the Bangalore tribunal in the case of Philips Software Vs. ACIT (119 TTJ 721) for allowing the 5% variation 2 I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 adjustment. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,025,050 being provision for transit breakages. 3.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law grossly erred on fac…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Pernod Ricard (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 2530/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 92C(2)

…the proviso to section 92C(2). 2.5 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the jurisdictional Tribunals judgment in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (114 ITD 448) (Del.) and that of the Bangalore tribunal in the case of Philips Software Vs. ACIT (119 TTJ 721) for allowing the 5% variation 2 I.T.A. 3811/D/09 & 3525/Del/09 I.T.A. 2770/D/11, 2530/D/11 Assessment year 2004-05, 05-06 adjustment. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,025,050 being provision for transit breakages. 3.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law grossly erred on fac…

M/S Arrow Electronics India Ltd., Bangalore vs. Addl.DIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assesssee’s appeals are dismissed, the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross-Objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 209/BANG/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Preethi Garg, CIT-DR
Section 148

…PO has arrived at a much higher figure as compared to what the AO under identical circumstances has computed. The appellant has also relied on the following judgments in support of the working capital adjustment: (a) Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACT (119 TTJ 721) (b) Sony India Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (315 ITR 150) (C)Egain Communications Pvt. Ltd (Delhi Tribunal in ITA No.1885/PM/2007). (d) Mentor Graphics P. Ltd., [109 ITD 101] [2007] [Delhi] IT(TP)A.209,210,617 to 619,COs.31 to 33/B/2011 Page - 23 After considering the appellant's arguments on these issues only two issues have to be determined. (i) Whet…

Sella Synergy India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2052/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2052/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr.Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…n making the adjustment under section 92 of the Act when the appellant income is not taxable as provided vide paragraph 55.5 of Circular No.14/200 of the CBDT and the principles of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Philips Software Centre Private Limited (26 SOT 226). Adjustment under section 92CA of the Act in respect of management fees paid 11. The learned AO/Honourable DRP has erred in upholding the TPO’s action of determining the ALP of management fee paid at zero without considering the benefits derived, relevant facts and submissions provided by the appellant. 12. The learned AO/Honourable DRP has er…

Magma Design Automation I P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1279/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10A

…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 percent² Average bank rate during FY 2008-09 (B) - 6.00 percent³ Difference between the prime lending rate and bank rate C = (A – B) -6.75 percent Risk Adjustment (C) - 6.75 percent ¹ The rates have been considered as per the details as available in the Economic…

Sharp Software Development India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1102/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Jahanzeb Akhtar, CIT - DR
Section 10ASection 92C

…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 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 the margins on the ground that it does not…

DCIT vs. M/S Fair Isaac India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1776/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodiasmt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…IT vs. Indo American Jewellery Ltd., ITA No. 6194/Mum/2008 [reported at (2010) 131 TTJ (Mumbai) 163 : (2010) 40 DTR (Mumbai)(Trib) 386—Ed.]; 5. Philips Software Centre (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2008) 119 TTJ (Bang) 721 : (2008) 15 DTR (Bang)(Trib) 505 : (2008) 26 SOT 226 (Bang); 6. Asstt. CIT vs. NIT (2011) 57 DTR (Del)(Trib) 334 8.1 He further submitted that size as a criteria for selection of comparables is also recommended by OCED in its TP guidelines. The observation of OCED in para 3.43 of the chapter on guidelines reads as follows : "Size criteria in terms of sales, assets or number of employees : The size o…

At & S India Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 179/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2011-12

Section 143(3)

…eld that : "various benches of the Tribunal including Asstt. CIT v. MSS India (P.) Ltd. [2009J 32 SOT 132 (Pune) and Philips Software Centre (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT ITA No.179/Kol/2016 A.Y 2011-12 AT & S India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Cir-11(1), Kol Page 37 [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 interna…

M/S Obulapuram Mining Company P. Ltd., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K.Mathew, CIT-III
Section 263Section 92A

…ve been justified, if the rate of tax was lower in Japan as compared to that in India, which was not so; and that it was, therefore, beyond comprehension as to why the assessee would harbour any motive of shifting income. 52. In the case of "Philip Software", 119 TTJ 721 (Bang.), it was held that since the basic intention behind introducing the TP provisions in the Act is to prevent shifting of profits outside India, and the assessee was claiming benefit u/s 1OA of the Act, the TP provisions ought not to be applied to the assessee. 53. Similar is the position in the following cases, amongst others: i)"ITO vs. Z…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sunquest Information Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1604/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T(Tp).A No.1604/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore .. Appellant V. M/S. Sunquest Information Systems (India) P. Ltd, 1St Floor, Eagle Ridge, Embassy Gold Links Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore 560 071 .. Respondent Pan : Aaecs2754E I.T(Tp).A No.1666/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) (By The Assessee) Assessee By : Shri. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 05.05.2016 Pronounced On : 27 .05.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 92

…IT(TP)A.1604 & 1666/Bang/2014 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T(TP).A No.1604/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore .. Appellant v. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems (India) P. Ltd, 1st floor, Eagle Ridge, Embassy Gold Links Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore 560 071 .. Respondent PAN : AAECS2754E I.T(TP).A No.1666/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) (By the Assessee) Assessee by : Shri. K…