Pr. CIT v. Aptara Technology Pvt. Ltd.

410 ITR 100High Court2019#20913 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10A Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234B Section 234C Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CA(3)

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Aptara Technology Pvt. Ltd.

TECH MAHINDRA BUISNESS SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 521/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…id company is 30%(approx.) In support of his submissions that the assessee and Informed Technologies India Ltd. are functionally different, he placed reliance on the following decisions: • Travelex India Pvt. Ltd. (supra); • Aptara Technology (P) Ltd., (2019) 410 ITR 100 (Bom); • DCIT Vs. DBOI Global Services (P) Ltd., 130 taxman.com 488 (Mum); • Dialogic Networks (India) P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 78 taxman.com 349 (Mum); • Stream International Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 152 ITD 664 (Mum). He further submitted that that risk profile of the two companies is also different. Informed Technologies India Ltd. is high risk…

DCIT 13(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TECH MAHINDRA BUSINESS SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1126/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

OPTIVA INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Srivastava

…ompany, we find that the extraordinary financial event of acquisition of another company taking place during the year under consideration has rendered it noncomparable. 8. The Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Aptara Technology Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 100 (Bom.) has upheld the decision of the Tribunal in excluding an otherwise functionally comparable company due to extraordinary events like merger etc. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Petro Araldite P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 154 TTJ 176 (Mum) has also held that a company cannot be considered as comparable because of exceptional financial results…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S EXXON MOBIL LUBRICANTS P. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2619/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Vs. Exxon Mobil Lubricants P. Ltd., Circle-11(1), Ernst & Young Tower, New Delhi. B-26, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi. Pan Aabce0207H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.D. Kapila, Advocate Shri R.R. Maurya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit- Dr Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR

…comparables. All those comparables have huge plant & machinery, land and building, etc., whereas the assessee does not have such huge assets. 26. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Aptara Technology Pvt. Ltd., 410 ITR 100 (Bom.), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where a company which outsources its work to sub-vendors as against the assessee carrying out its activity in-house should not be selected as a comparable. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. C…