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

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Indo Spanish Tasty Foods Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 194/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt Neera Malhotra, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.194(Bang) 2015 (Assessment year : 2010-11) And C.O.No.90(Bang)/2015 (Assessment year 2010-11) (By assessee) The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3(1)(1)), Bangalore-560 001. Appellant Vs M/s Indo Spanish Tasty Foods Pvt.Ltd., Plot No.78-81, KIADB Industrial Area, Kunigal, Tumkur District, Bangalore-572 130 Respondent Revenue by : Smt Neera Malhotra, CIT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Date of hearing : 17-03-2016…

M/S. Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6638/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Lower Ground Floor, C-4/5, New Delhi. Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi (Pan: Aadcp7362G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Ms. Shweta Kashyap, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.10.2013 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) In Relation To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ao") Erred On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Making An Addition To The Total Income Of The Appellant Amounting To Rs. 95,945,630/- In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("Drp") Upholding The Adjustment To The Transfer Price Proposed By The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Tpo").

For Appellant: S/sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…sk adjustment relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal: Mentor Graphics Private Limited (Noida) (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT: [2007]1091TD 101 (Del) Egain Communication Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO: [2008]23 SOT 385 (Pune) Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT: [2008] 26 SOT 226 (Bang.) Cordys R&D (India) Private Limited vs DCIT: ITA No. 1092 (Hyd) of 2010 13.1 The CIT (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the lower authorities. 13.2 We have heard the rival submission and perused material on record including cases cited by the ld AR. In the transfer pricing study, the endeavor is to improve the comparability bet…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Iron Mountain Information Management India (P) Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 445/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri P.Dhivahar, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri L. Bharath, CA
Section 10ASection 10B

…dated 22/06/2015. 5.1 Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that for coming to the above conclusion, the CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Philips Software Centre (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 26 SOT 226, which has been stayed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. In the case of M/s Sunquest Information Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd (cited supra) and various other cases to which both of us are signatories, this Tribunal has been holding that the companies with RPT of more than 15% alone should be excluded from the final list of IT(TP)A No.445/Bang/2012…

Multitech Software Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 73/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.73/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) M/S. Multitech Software Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 12(1), Bangalore. No.170, 8Th Cross, 10Th Main, Indiranagar, 2Nd Stage, Bangalore-560 038 Pan Aaacm 9615Q Appellant Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I (D.R)
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…following issues as under. 7 IT(T.P)A Nos.73 & 175/Bang/2012 9.2 Companies with Related Party Transactions (‘RPF’) The learned CIT(A) relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Phillips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. V ACIT (26 SOT 226), held that companies with any RPT are to be excluded from the set of comparable companies and accordingly 6 of the 17 companies selected by the TPO were excluded from the set of comparable companies which are as under :- 1. Sasken Network Systems Ltd. 2. Four Soft Ltd. 3. R.S. Software India Ltd. 4. Geometric Software Solutions Ltd. 5. Tata Elxsi…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Fmc India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed and the assessee's C

ITA 431/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2015AY 2007-08
For Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…transaction means a transaction between enterprise other than Associate Enterprise”. Hence, the controlled transactions cannot be considered for the comparability analysis. The Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Philips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (26 SOT 226) held that in view of Rule 10A(a), a company having related party transactions cannot be considered as comparable company. This view also finds support from the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Mentor Graphics (Noida) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1969/D/2006, contrary to that in the case of Sony India (P) Ltd., the Hon'ble ITAT, New D…

Nds Limited - India Branch Office, Bangalore vs. DDIT International Taxation, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed

ITA 1515/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T(T.P) A. No.1515/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Nds Limited – India Branch Office, Vs. Dy. Director Of Income Tax, No.9, Ashford Park View, (International Taxation), 80 Ft Road, Koramangala Iii Block, Circle 1 (1), Bangalore. Bangalore-560 034 Pan Aabcn 2524L Appellant Respondent.

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…ument that the transfer pricing provisions will not apply when tax payer’s income is exempt as provided vide paragraph 55.5 of Circular no 14/2000 of the CBDT and the principles of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Philips Software Centre Private Limited (26 SOT 226). 3.27 The impugned order of assessment dated December 29, 2009 was made based on an order dated October 28, 2009, purportedly under section 92CA made by the JDIT, TPO II, Bangalore. However, the said transfer pricing order is made without jurisdiction and hence invalid. In view of the provisions of the Act and the notifications, it is evident tha…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Misys Software (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2005-06 and the C

ITA 1110/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T(T.P.) A. No.1110/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(1), Bangalore-560 001 …. Appellant. Vs. M/S. Misys Software (I) Pvt. Ltd., Eagle Ridge, Embassy Golf Links Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore-560 071. ….. Respondent. Pan Aaack 9067G C.O. No.20/Bang/2012 (In I.T(T.P.) A. No.1110/Bang/2011) (By Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…under. 8 IT(T.P)A No. 1110/Bang/2011 & C.O. No.20/Bang/2012 9.2 Companies with Related Party Transactions (‘RPF’) The learned CIT(A) relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Phillips Software Centre Pvt. Ltd. V ACIT (26 SOT 226), held that companies with any RPT are to be excluded from the set of comparable companies and accordingly 12 of the 17 companies selected by the TPO were excluded from the set of comparable companies. As seen from the order of the learned CIT(A) in case of some of the comparable companies, the assessee had argued against their inclusion on groun…