Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

377 ITR 533High Court2015#477 most cited

What is Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) service providers are functionally dissimilar to Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) or Information Technology Enabled Services (ITeS) providers and cannot be compared for transfer pricing purposes, even under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). Further, companies with significantly different business models, such as those with extensive subcontracting, should be excluded as comparables.

196

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 377 ITR 533 · Section 92C(2) · Transfer Pricing · comparable companies · KPO BPO functional dissimilarity · Transactional Net Margin Method · TNMM · business model difference · subcontracting · Section 10A · Section 10B

Also reported as

279 CTR 441

Sections most often in play

Section 10B(3)Section 133(6)Section 10B(2)(a)Section 234BSection 10(B)(3)Section 108(1)(e)Section 10ASection 10B(1)(e)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

captive service providersection 92c(2)resulting companyworking capital adjustmenttransactional net margin methodfar analysisrelated party transactiondemergercomparable companiestested partystrategic investmentamalgamation

Judgments citing Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai vs. Usv Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4914/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, AR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s USV Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner of Income Arvind Vithal Gandhi Chowk, Vs. Tax Central Circle 5(1), BSD Marg, Govandi, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400088. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 PAN No. AAACU 1366 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT Central Circle 5(1), M/s USV Private Limited, R. No. 1928, 19th Floor, Air Vs. Arvind Vithal Gandhi Chowk, BSD India Building, Nariman Point, Marg, Govandi, Mumbai 400…

Evalueserve Sez (Gurgaon) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2516/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. Mahboob, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Evalueserve SEZ (Gurgaon) Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 8(2) 8th, 9th& 10th Floor, Building No. 4, New Delhi Unitech Realty Projects Ltd., SEZ Tikri, Sector- 48, Gurgaon. PAN :AAACE8812A Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT, Circle 8(1) vs. Evalueserve SEZ (Gurgaon) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 701, Guru Apartments, Sector – 14, Rohini, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. K. Mahboob, Sr. DR…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Evalueserve Sez (Gurgaon) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2966/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. Mahboob, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Evalueserve SEZ (Gurgaon) Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 8(2) 8th, 9th& 10th Floor, Building No. 4, New Delhi Unitech Realty Projects Ltd., SEZ Tikri, Sector- 48, Gurgaon. PAN :AAACE8812A Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT, Circle 8(1) vs. Evalueserve SEZ (Gurgaon) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 701, Guru Apartments, Sector – 14, Rohini, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. K. Mahboob, Sr. DR…

Bertelsmann Marketing Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6579/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishibertelsmann Marketing Services Vs. Dcit, India Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(2), 215, Second Floor, Suneja New Delhi Tower-Ii, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi Pan: Aabcb8378Gq (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nidhi Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 271Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…efore, before establishing that assessee is also a KPO, TPO cannot adopt another comparable KPO for comparability analysis. Such is the mandate of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Rampgreen Solutions Private Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax 377 ITR 533 (Delhi)/60 taxmann.com 355 (2015). In view of this fact that assessee is not a KPO, the above comparable is required to be excluded. Ld TPO is directed accordingly to exclude this comparable. 17. With respect to TCS E serve Ltd it was submitted that it is functionally dissimilar, no segmental information available, significantly high turnover sta…

Smart Analyst India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal bearing ITA

ITA 2745/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasst. Cit, M/S Smart Analyst Circle-24(1), India Pvt. Ltd. New, Delhi. 14Th Floor, Tower-D, Vs. Dlf Phase-Iii, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Pan: Aaics 6117P (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Smart Analyst India Dy. Cit Private Limited. Circle-24(1) 90/31B 1St Floor, New Delhi. Malviya Nagar, Vs. New Delhi-110017 Pan: Aaics 6117P (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.181/Del/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No.3779/Del/2017 (Assessment Year-2011-12) Asst. Cit, M/S Smart Analyst India Circle-24(1), Private Limited. New Delhi. Vs. 90/31B 1St Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017 Pan: Aaics 6117P (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.181/Del/2017 Ita No.2745/Del/2018 (Assessment Year-2012-13) M/S Smart Analyst India Asst. Cit Private Limited Circle-24(1) 90/31B 1St Floor, New Delhi. Malviya Nagar, Vs. New Delhi-110017 Pan: Aaics 6117P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 92C

…. Undisputedly, the assessee is providing low end back office services to its AE whereas E-Clerx Services Ltd. is providing KPO related services as has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solution Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 377 ITR 533 (Delhi). The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court are contained in C.O No.181/Del/2017 paragraph 37 of the said order which is reproduced hereunder for a ready reference: “37. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is once again clear that both Vishal and eClerx could not be taken as comparables…

Smart Anaylyst India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal bearing ITA

ITA 3989/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasst. Cit, M/S Smart Analyst Circle-24(1), India Pvt. Ltd. New, Delhi. 14Th Floor, Tower-D, Vs. Dlf Phase-Iii, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Pan: Aaics 6117P (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Smart Analyst India Dy. Cit Private Limited. Circle-24(1) 90/31B 1St Floor, New Delhi. Malviya Nagar, Vs. New Delhi-110017 Pan: Aaics 6117P (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.181/Del/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No.3779/Del/2017 (Assessment Year-2011-12) Asst. Cit, M/S Smart Analyst India Circle-24(1), Private Limited. New Delhi. Vs. 90/31B 1St Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017 Pan: Aaics 6117P (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.181/Del/2017 Ita No.2745/Del/2018 (Assessment Year-2012-13) M/S Smart Analyst India Asst. Cit Private Limited Circle-24(1) 90/31B 1St Floor, New Delhi. Malviya Nagar, Vs. New Delhi-110017 Pan: Aaics 6117P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 92C

…. Undisputedly, the assessee is providing low end back office services to its AE whereas E-Clerx Services Ltd. is providing KPO related services as has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solution Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 377 ITR 533 (Delhi). The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court are contained in C.O No.181/Del/2017 paragraph 37 of the said order which is reproduced hereunder for a ready reference: “37. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is once again clear that both Vishal and eClerx could not be taken as comparables…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Smart Analyst India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the assessee’s appeal bearing ITA

ITA 3779/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasst. Cit, M/S Smart Analyst Circle-24(1), India Pvt. Ltd. New, Delhi. 14Th Floor, Tower-D, Vs. Dlf Phase-Iii, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Pan: Aaics 6117P (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Smart Analyst India Dy. Cit Private Limited. Circle-24(1) 90/31B 1St Floor, New Delhi. Malviya Nagar, Vs. New Delhi-110017 Pan: Aaics 6117P (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.181/Del/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No.3779/Del/2017 (Assessment Year-2011-12) Asst. Cit, M/S Smart Analyst India Circle-24(1), Private Limited. New Delhi. Vs. 90/31B 1St Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017 Pan: Aaics 6117P (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.181/Del/2017 Ita No.2745/Del/2018 (Assessment Year-2012-13) M/S Smart Analyst India Asst. Cit Private Limited Circle-24(1) 90/31B 1St Floor, New Delhi. Malviya Nagar, Vs. New Delhi-110017 Pan: Aaics 6117P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 92C

…. Undisputedly, the assessee is providing low end back office services to its AE whereas E-Clerx Services Ltd. is providing KPO related services as has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solution Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 377 ITR 533 (Delhi). The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court are contained in C.O No.181/Del/2017 paragraph 37 of the said order which is reproduced hereunder for a ready reference: “37. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is once again clear that both Vishal and eClerx could not be taken as comparables…

Steria (India) Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 8, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 5745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…s company as comparable on the basis that under TNMM only broad comparability is to be seen. It is submitted that the aforesaid contention of the TPO is contrary to the findings of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions Pvt Ltd vs CIT 377 ITR 533 wherein the Hon‟ble Court held that selection of TNMM cannot be a consideration for dilution of comparability standards. To the same effect is the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 350/2016) wherein the Hon‟ble Court held that the principles governing the selection of comparables remains…

M/S Steria Ndia Ltd., Noida vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…s company as comparable on the basis that under TNMM only broad comparability is to be seen. It is submitted that the aforesaid contention of the TPO is contrary to the findings of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions Pvt Ltd vs CIT 377 ITR 533 wherein the Hon‟ble Court held that selection of TNMM cannot be a consideration for dilution of comparability standards. To the same effect is the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 350/2016) wherein the Hon‟ble Court held that the principles governing the selection of comparables remains…

Steria India Ltd., Noida vs. Addl.CIT, Speciaql Range-8, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 3992/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…s company as comparable on the basis that under TNMM only broad comparability is to be seen. It is submitted that the aforesaid contention of the TPO is contrary to the findings of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions Pvt Ltd vs CIT 377 ITR 533 wherein the Hon‟ble Court held that selection of TNMM cannot be a consideration for dilution of comparability standards. To the same effect is the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 350/2016) wherein the Hon‟ble Court held that the principles governing the selection of comparables remains…

Midland Credit Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 6, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part on the grounds argued before us whereas the appeal of the revenue stands

ITA 3892/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT - DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 92C

…ally affect the price or cost. In other words, given the data available, if the distorting factor can be severed and the other data used, that course has to be necessarily adopted.” (all emphasis in original) 16. In Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 533 this Court further discussed Rule 10-B (2) of the IT Rules. This Court pointed out how although both the Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) services and the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) services fall within the broad definition of ITES, companies engaged in KPO services cannot be used as comparables for the TP study of a company engaged in…

Addl.CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Midland Credit Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part on the grounds argued before us whereas the appeal of the revenue stands

ITA 3765/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, CIT - DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 92C

…ally affect the price or cost. In other words, given the data available, if the distorting factor can be severed and the other data used, that course has to be necessarily adopted.” (all emphasis in original) 16. In Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 533 this Court further discussed Rule 10-B (2) of the IT Rules. This Court pointed out how although both the Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) services and the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) services fall within the broad definition of ITES, companies engaged in KPO services cannot be used as comparables for the TP study of a company engaged in…

Elcome Technologies Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-Range 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2051/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Day () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Elcome Technologies Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Vs. Tax-Range 15(1)(1), Mumbai. Elcome House, A-06, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurgaon-122002 Pan No. Aaace7023Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dhanesh Bafna /Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anand Mohan/Mr. Michael Jerald, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2020

For Appellant: Mr. Dhanesh Bafna /Mr. Arpit Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan/Mr. Michael Jerald, DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…ourt in Li & Fung India (P) Ltd v. CIT(2014) 361 ITR 85(Del.) has held that FAR analysis plays a critical role in determining the ALP of an international transaction entered between AEs. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rampgreen Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 533 (Del) has held that the comparables should be selected on the basis of similarity. Thus it is evident that the functional comparability cannot be seen on a broader categorization but on functional level. The Hon’ble High Court further laid down that the selection of comparables does not differ with the method adopted. In the instant case, the ap…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Louis Dreyfus Commudities India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1571/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & AnubhavFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr.D.R

…ded that all these contentions now raised by the Id. AR for the taxpayer have been extensively dealt with by the Id. DRP and relied upon Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 376 ITR 183 (Del.) and Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 533 delivered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 17. When we examine the business profile of TCS E-Serve, available at pages 69, 83 and 21 of the annual report compilation, no doubt the TCS E-Serve is primarily engaged in providing Business Process Services (BPO) to its customers in banking, financial services and insurance domain but, at the same time, c…

Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1555/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma & AnubhavFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr.D.R

…ded that all these contentions now raised by the Id. AR for the taxpayer have been extensively dealt with by the Id. DRP and relied upon Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 376 ITR 183 (Del.) and Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 533 delivered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 17. When we examine the business profile of TCS E-Serve, available at pages 69, 83 and 21 of the annual report compilation, no doubt the TCS E-Serve is primarily engaged in providing Business Process Services (BPO) to its customers in banking, financial services and insurance domain but, at the same time, c…

United Health Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 473/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-2 : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Court Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs DCIT, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly known as United Health CR Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11th Floor, Tower A, DLF Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. PAN: AADCA6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited CR Building, (Formerly known as United Health New Delhi Group In…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S United Health Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 193/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-2 : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Court Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs DCIT, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly known as United Health CR Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11th Floor, Tower A, DLF Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. PAN: AADCA6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited CR Building, (Formerly known as United Health New Delhi Group In…

Imsofer Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose

ITA 1049/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) & [A.Y 2009-10 & 2010-11]

For Appellant: Sh.Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M. Bavanwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92C(2)Section 92D

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH, NEW DELH I BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) & [A.Y 2009-10 & 2010-11] Imsofer Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd. DCIT 2nd Floor, Pentagaon Tower-I, Circle-11(1) Magarpatta City, Hadapsar Room No.312, Pune -411028 C. R. Building New Delhi PAN No. AABCI6450N Appellant by : Sh.Ajit Kumar Jain, CA Respondent by : Sh. M. Bavanwal, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 11.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: ITA No.5158/Del/2015 and 1049/Del/2016…

Imsofer Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose

ITA 5158/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) & [A.Y 2009-10 & 2010-11]

For Appellant: Sh.Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M. Bavanwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92C(2)Section 92D

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH, NEW DELH I BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) & [A.Y 2009-10 & 2010-11] Imsofer Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd. DCIT 2nd Floor, Pentagaon Tower-I, Circle-11(1) Magarpatta City, Hadapsar Room No.312, Pune -411028 C. R. Building New Delhi PAN No. AABCI6450N Appellant by : Sh.Ajit Kumar Jain, CA Respondent by : Sh. M. Bavanwal, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 11.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: ITA No.5158/Del/2015 and 1049/Del/2016…

Morgan Stanley Advantage Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6523/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Morgan Stainley Advantage Services P. Ltd. Dy. Cit Range 9(2) Athena Building No.3, Sector 30, R. No. 218, Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Goregaon (W) Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 050 020

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Moti LalaFor Respondent: 03.02.2020

…characterization of the assessee as KPO. Hence, KPO selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer cannot be considered as comparables. The learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 533 (Delhi) has categorically expressed reservation on the observation of the Special Bench relied upon by the learned CIT(A). Further, he has submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. (supra) has been followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PTC Software (I) (P) Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 176 (…