Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

398 ITR 66High Court2017#1107 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Not every item of receivables appearing in the accounts of an entity dealing with foreign associated enterprises automatically constitutes an international transaction under Section 92B. A separate adjustment for interest on outstanding receivables is not permissible if the working capital adjustment has already factored in their impact.

100

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. · Kusum Health Care · Section 92B · Section 92CA · interest on outstanding receivables · international transaction · transfer pricing adjustment · working capital adjustment · associated enterprises · receivables not international transaction · no further interest adjustment on receivables

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92BSection 10AASection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CASection 92CA(3)

Issues it is cited on

interest on outstanding receivablessection 92b(1)working capital adjustmentcaptive service providersection 92bmultiple year datacomparable companiesmost appropriate methodtransfer pricing adjustmentassociated enterprisescost plus methodrelated party transaction

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 181/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., No. 10 Brindavan, The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Yashoda Nagar Main Income Tax, Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Jakkur Plantation, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan: Aaacq0656P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahaveer C Jain, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 25/01/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer C Jain, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

…lhi Tribunal in case of Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 79, deleted addition by considering the above principle, and that subsequently Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2017) 398 ITR 66, held that no interest could have been charged as it cannot be considered as international transaction. He also placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India vs DCIT reported in (2016) 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 21/07/16 in ITA No. 379/2016, also upheld…

Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 321/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…ed addition by considering the above principle, and subsequently IT(TP)A No.321/Bang/2022 Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Ltd., Bangalore Page 16 of 19 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 431/[2017] 398 ITR 66, held that no interest could have been charged as it cannot be considered as international transaction. He also placed reliance upon decision of Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order in Pr. CIT v. Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 37…

M/S Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

…eliance on decision of Delhi Tribunal in Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 79, deleted addition by considering the above principle, and subsequently Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 66 (Del), held that no interest could have been charged as it cannot be considered as international transaction. He also placed reliance upon decision of Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India vs DCIT reported in (2016) 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon’able Delhi High Court vide order dated 21/07/16 in ITA No. 379/2016, also upheld b…

Binod Kumar Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1479/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ“जे”मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एम.बालागनेश, लेखा सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 PAN: AABCS1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, AayakarBhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. .....…

Multi Screen Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1429/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ“जे”मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एम.बालागनेश, लेखा सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 PAN: AABCS1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, AayakarBhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. .....…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs. Multi Screen Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1178/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ“जे”मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एम.बालागनेश, लेखा सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 PAN: AABCS1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, AayakarBhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. .....…

Multi Screen Media P. Ltd ( Formerly Knon As Set India P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7721/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ“जे”मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एम.बालागनेश, लेखा सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 PAN: AABCS1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, AayakarBhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. .....…

M/S. Outsourcepartners International Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 35/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.35/Bang/2020 Assessment year : 2015-16 Outsourcepartners International Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Tower 2D, Embassy Tech Village, of Income Tax, Devarabeesanahalli Outer Ring Road, Circle 5(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 037. Bangalore. PAN : AAACO 5734C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 O R…

Enem Nostrum Remedies Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT -9(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is partly allowed

ITA 1688/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee LondheFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Enem Nostrum Remedies Private Limited, Unit No. 201 to 204, Gayatri Commercial Complex, Behind Mittal Industrial Estate, Marol, Andheri (East),Mumbai - 400059 [PAN: AAACE8766G] ……………. Appellant Assistant Commissioner of Vs Income Tax – 9(2)(2), Mumbai, Room No. 665A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 …………….. Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/ Assessee : Ms. Chaitee Londhe For the Respondent/Department : Shri Sumit Kumar Date of conclusion of hearing : 23.03.2022 Dat…

M/S Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3403/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

…therefore a separate adjustment on that count is not warranted. Reliance in this regard is placed on Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT ([2015] 62 taxmann.com 79 (Delhi - Trib.), upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi Court in PCIT v. Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. ([2017] 398 ITR 66 (Delhi). d. The TPO determined the adjustment without applying any method as prescribed under Rule 10B of the Rules, and therefore the entire adjustment is liable to be set aside. Reliance in this regard is placed on CIT v. Merck (reported in (2016) 73 taxmann.com 23 (Bombay) and Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd. V. ACIT (Order dated 25.04.2022…

M/S. Maxim Integrated Products India Sales Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 208/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 92C

…n of Delhi Tribunal in Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 79, deleted addition by considering the above principle, and subsequently Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 431/[2017] 398 ITR 66, held that no interest could have been charged as it cannot be considered as international transaction. He also placed reliance upon decision of Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide ITA No.208/B/22 Page 6 of 11 order in Pr. CIT v. Bechtel Ind…

Orange Business Services India Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the SA of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1099/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 1098/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1099/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 & Sa No. 252/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Orange Business Services India Vs. Dcit, Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Tower-B, 8Th Floor, Circle-3, Dlf Infinity Tower, Phase-Ii, Sector- Gurgaon 25, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce4540P Assessee By : Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Shah, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…see filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. 7. The ld. DRP has considered the submission and upheld the order of the TPO, holding that the TPO has considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Kusum Healthcare 398 ITR 66, at page 6 of the order dated 25.10.2019 and give categorical finding of distinguishable facts emerging in this case. It was held that the TPO has noted the study of the bill wise and payment wise analysis of the receivables in the case of assessee reveals that this is not a case involving this issue for a year or two and, in fact there exists a c…

Orange Business Services India Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the SA of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1098/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 1098/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1099/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 & Sa No. 252/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Orange Business Services India Vs. Dcit, Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Tower-B, 8Th Floor, Circle-3, Dlf Infinity Tower, Phase-Ii, Sector- Gurgaon 25, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce4540P Assessee By : Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Shah, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…see filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. 7. The ld. DRP has considered the submission and upheld the order of the TPO, holding that the TPO has considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Kusum Healthcare 398 ITR 66, at page 6 of the order dated 25.10.2019 and give categorical finding of distinguishable facts emerging in this case. It was held that the TPO has noted the study of the bill wise and payment wise analysis of the receivables in the case of assessee reveals that this is not a case involving this issue for a year or two and, in fact there exists a c…

M/S Talisma Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2499/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2499/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Olympia The Deputy Building, Commissioner Of Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C V Raman Nagar, Circle 7 (1)(1), Byrasandra Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2017 For A.Y. 2013-14 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Talisma Corporation Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned A01 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 (The Act") On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law: 1. The Learned Ao/ Transfer Pricing Officer (.Tpo') Erred. In Law & In Facts. In Making An Addition Of Inr 1,44.13,409

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)

…n of Delhi Tribunal in Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 79, deleted addition by considering the above principle, and subsequently Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care (P.) Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 431/[2017] 398 ITR 66, held that no interest could have been charged as it cannot be considered as Page 10 of 14 IT(TP)A No. 2499/Bang/2017 international transaction. He also placed reliance upon decision of Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order in Pr. CIT v.…

Goodrich Aerospace Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 566/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 566/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Goodrich Aerospace Services Pvt. Ltd., 14/1 & 15/1, The Deputy Maruthi Industrial Commissioner Of Estate, Income Tax, Phase 2, Hoody Village, Circle – 3 (1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Kr Puram, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan: Aaacb8857H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Hereinafter Taken By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. I. Transfer Pricing 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ao"), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Learned Tpo") & The Honourable Dispute

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 40Section 92BSection 92C

…sion of Delhi Tribunal in Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT reported in (2015) 62 taxmann.com 79 deleted addition by considering the above principle, and subsequently Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care (P.) Ltd. reported in (2017) 398 ITR 66, held that no interest could have been charged as it cannot be considered as international transaction. He also placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India v. Dy. CIT reported in (2016) 66 taxmann.com 6, which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 21/07/16 in ITA No. 379/2016, also up…

M/S Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3133/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3133/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 65/2, Bagmane Laurel, Commissioner Of Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C.V Raman Nagar, Circle – 2 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 093. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcc2470Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 133(6)Section 92CSection 92D

…decision of Delhi Tribunal in Kusum Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 79, deleted addition by considering the above principle, and subsequently Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 398 ITR 66 (Del), held that no interest could have been charged as it cannot be considered as international transaction. He also placed reliance upon decision of Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India vs DCIT reported in (2016) 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'able Delhi High Court vide order dated 21/07/16 in ITA No. 379/2016, also upheld b…

American Power Conversion (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…hcare Pvt.Ltd vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 79, deleted addition by considering the above principle, and Page 39 of 52 IT(TP)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 subsequently Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 398 ITR 66 (Del), held that no interest could have been charged as it cannot be considered as international transaction. He also placed reliance upon decision of Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India vs DCIT reported in (2016) 66 taxman.com 6 which subsequently upheld by Hon'able Delhi High Court vide order dated 21/07/16 in ITA No. 379/2016, also upheld b…

Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 397/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.397/Bang/2021 Assessment year : 2016-17 Swiss Re Global Business Solutions Vs. The Addl./Jt./Dy./Asst. India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax/ITO, 2nd to 5th Floor, Fairwinds Building, National Faceless Assessment Embassy Golf Links Business Park, Centre (NFAC), Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Delhi. Bengaluru – 560 071. PAN: AAECS 8786L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CI…

M/S Trilar Video Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3367/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

…sion of Delhi Tribunal in Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT reported in (2015) 62 taxmann.com 79 deleted addition by considering the above principle, and subsequently Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care (P.) Ltd. reported in (2017) 398 ITR 66, held that no interest could have been charged as it cannot be considered as international transaction. He also placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Bechtel India v. Dy. CIT reported in (2016) 66 taxmann.com 6, which subsequently upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 21/07/16 in ITA No. 379/2016, also up…

M/S Erm India P Ltd., New Delhi vs. Neac, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 513/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Sa No. 92/Del/2021 (In Ita No. 513/Del/2021) Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Mr. Bhagwati Charan, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 92B

…ors warrant a longer period of credit and the Ld. TPO failed to appreciate this fact. Assessee also placed reliance on the decisionof the Tribunal and also of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kusum Healthcare Private Limited vs. ACIT[2017] 398 ITR 66 (Delhi), in support of their contention that when once working capital adjustment is made, it subsumes the interest on receivables also and, therefore, no separate benchmarking of the interest on receivables could be resorted to. 4. By order dated 17/11/2020 Ld. DRP held that the decision in Kusum Healthcare Private Limited (supra) cannot be foll…