How many judgments cite Principal CIT v. Allscripts (India) (P.) Ltd.?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite Principal CIT v. Allscripts (India) (P.) Ltd. (72 Taxmann.com 305), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Principal CIT v. Allscripts (India) (P.) Ltd.

72 Taxmann.com 305High Court2016#10913 most cited

What is Principal CIT v. Allscripts (India) (P.) Ltd. authority for?

A company with highly fluctuating profit margins due to a different revenue recognition model can be excluded from the list of comparables in transfer pricing analysis.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Principal CIT v. Allscripts (India) (P.) Ltd. · Allscripts India (P.) Ltd. · fluctuating profit margins · revenue recognition model · comparable selection · transfer pricing · exclusion of comparables · functional dissimilarities

Judgments citing Principal CIT v. Allscripts (India) (P.) Ltd.

ACIT, Circle- 9(1), New Delhi vs. Fis Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are partly allowed as above for statistical purposes

ITA 372/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

…ta available. The Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Mentor Graphics (India) Ltd. 469 ITR 524 (Del), Fiserv India Pvt. Ltd. 92taxmann471 (Del), Barclays Technology Centre India (P) Ltd. 409 ITR 138 (Bom) and Allscripts India (P) Ltd. 288 CTR 675 (Guj). 8. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the record. After careful consideration of material on the record and facts in entirety, we find force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel that this comparable has been rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) as this comparable is not a suitable comparable on the reasoning…

Harshvardhan Johari vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/48/2020HC Rajasthan27 Mar 2025

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 319/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

…ITA Nos.179/Ind/2016, 292/Ind/2017, 319/Ind/2018 & SA No.46/Ind/2021 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 1 of 29 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/s. Computer Sciences Corporation vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of India Private Limited, Income Tax – 2(1), 19A, Electronic Complex, Indore. Aatmaram Choudhary Marg, Near Readymade Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore – 452 010. [PAN – AABCC 5820 A] Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Computer Science…

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. The ACIT-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 292/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

M/S. Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Indore vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 179/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

M/S. Acusis Software India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

ITA 2702/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2702/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Acusis Software India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 17/2, Dollars Chamber, Income Tax, Lalbagh Road, Circle – 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 027. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aadca2415P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order 12.10.2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Revised & Modified Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Acusis Software India 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 Ao'] Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 ('The Act') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 2702/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Acusis Software India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of No. 17/2, Dollars Chamber, Income Tax, Lalbagh Road, Circle – 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 027. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AADCA2415P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Chavali Narayan, CA : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT Revenue by (DR) Date of Hearing : 01-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 01-02-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal by the a…

M/S. Arctern Consulting Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

ITA 2747/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A. No. 2747/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Arctern Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Embassy Tech Village, The Deputy Tower 2B, Commissioner Of Hibiscus 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(1)(2), Vs. Deverabeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560103. Pan: Aaeca9113F (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Appellant By : Advocate Respondent By : Shri Gopinath C.H., Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 17/10/2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Act By The Ld.Dcit, Circle1(1)(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Respondent / Assessing Officer ('Ao' For Short) Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (The Drp' For Short). To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant. Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. Adjustment To The Prices Charged By The Appellant For International Transactions-

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gopinath C.H., CIT (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A. No. 2747/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Arctern Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Embassy Tech Village, The Deputy Tower 2B, Commissioner of Hibiscus 5th Floor, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(1)(2), vs. Deverabeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560103. PAN: AAECA9113F (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Appellant by : Advocate Respondent by : Shri Gopinath C.H., CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 23.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 03.1…

Bmc Software India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

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

ITA 189/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.189/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Bmc Software India Private Limited, Tower A, Icc Tech Park, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune-411 016. Pan : Aabcb6110E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Bansal, CIT &

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.189/PUN/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 BMC Software India Private Limited, Tower A, ICC Tech Park, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune-411 016. PAN : AABCB6110E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue by : Shri Neeraj Bansal, CIT & Shri Mugda Sardeshmukh, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 21.08.2…

Bmc Software India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Pune

ITA 2549/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2549/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 143(3)

…ng expenses to the Profit and loss account but the invoice will be raised only in the year of completing the project. This leads to fluctuating margins from year to year. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Allscripts (India) Private Ltd. (2016) 288 CTR 675 (Gujarat) considered the fluctuating margins of this company from the F.Ys. 2005-06 to 2012-13 which have been tabulated in para 6 of the judgment, viz., 13.87%, 80.15%, 19.89%, 62.27%, 33.42%, (-) 4.46%, 3.29% and (-)11.53%. Considering the fluctuating profit margins based on an altogether different revenue recognition model, the Hon’ble Hi…

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND 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 अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Rajendra Agiwal प्रत्यथी की ओर से…