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 366,314 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, Pune vs. Trizetto Services India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 667/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.667/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. Trizetto Services India Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, “D” Building, Weikfield, It-Citi Infopark, Nagar Road, Pune-411014. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aabct8862F Revenue By : Ms. Amrita Mishra Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Drp-3, Mumbai Dated 14.12.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- Whether The Drp Was Justified In Rejecting Eclerx Services Ltd. “1. Treating It As Kpo Without Appreciating That Kpo & Bpo Companies Both Fell Under Broader Ites Category & In Reality There Is Seamlessness In Ites Functions & Comparability Analysis Is Based On Functions, Assets & Risk. 2. Whether The Drp Was Right In Law & On Facts In Directing Tpo To Re- Compute The Operating Profit Margin Of The Assessee Without Considering The One Time Price Rebate Of Rs.5,32,10,455/-.” 3. Briefly Stated The Relevant Facts Include That The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Bpo Services I.E. Remote Processing Applications Including

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Ms. Amrita Mishra
Section 92C

…ent of the services rendered by virtue of IT is to be examined before holding it to be comparable.' (iv) Further, our attention is invited to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 60 taxmann.com 355/234 Taxman 573/377 ITR 533 wherein Delhi High Court held that KPO services could not be compared to call centre services, although both would fall under the umbrella of ITES. Therefore, the functions of two cannot be considered to be similar for the purpose of being comparable. (v) In the above view, this question also does not give rise to any substantial question of law.…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed in view of our

ITA 4406/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-9(2) M/S. Morgan Stanley Room No. 218, 2Nd Floor, Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Athena Building No.5, M.K. Road, Sector-30, Mindscape, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400074. Pan: Aaaca3400B Appellant Respondent M/S. Morgan Stanley Dcit, Cc-3(4) Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Athena Building No.5, M.K. Road, Sector-30, Mindscape, Mumbai-400018. Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400074. Pan: Aaaca3400B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Jayant Kumar (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Sunil M. Lala With Shri Tushar Hathiramani (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Kumar (DR)For Respondent: Shri Sunil M. Lala with Shri Tushar Hathiramani (AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…(Bangalore Tribn.) (6) Symphony Marketing Solutions India (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [2013] 38 taxmann.com 55 (Bangalore Trib.) (7) BNY Mellon International Operations (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT [2015] 173 TTJ 354 (Pune) and Rampgreen Solutaion P Ltd Vs CIT (2015) 377 ITR 533 (Delhi). 19. For I services, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that this company is in divergent high end services like web hosting, email services, spam filtering, domain names and DNS hosting, web hosting, email services, spam filtering, domain names and DNS hosting is also providing web design services, domain management services and email…

Gts E-Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1231/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1231/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Gts E-Services Private Ltd. Income Tax Officer-15(1)(4) 103, A-Wing Kensinton Room No.15B, Ground Floor बनाम/ Hiranandani Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Hiranandani Builder Sez Mumbai-400 020. Powai, Mumbai-400 076. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-8662-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Patel- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Agarwal – Addl. Cit-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 26/06/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Patel- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Agarwal – Addl. CIT-Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…(Special Bench) in Maersk Global Centers (India) Pvt. Ltd. V/s ACIT [2014 43 Taxmann.com 100], Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Aptara Technology Pvt. Ltd. [2018 92 Taxmann.com 240] & Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT [2015 60 Taxmann.com 355]. 4.2 In the above background, Ld. AR argued for exclusion of 4 entities namely (i) Accentia Technologies Ltd. (ii) Universal Print Systems Ltd. (iii) BNR Udyog Ltd. (iv) Excel Infoways Ltd. by submitting that these entities were functionally not comparable to low-end ITeS services being provided by the assessee. To support the same, relia…

J.P Morgan Advisors India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 990/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.990/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) J.P. Morgan Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. J.P. Morgan Tower, Off CST Road ……………. Appellant Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 098 PAN – AABCJ4509K v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–3(2), Mumbai IT(TP)A no.1754/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Range–3(2), Mumbai v/s J.P. Morgan Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. J.P. Morgan Tower, Off CST Road ……………. Respond…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Ina Bearings India Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that

ITA 281/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.148/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

…profitability of this company is not ascertainable, which renders it incomparable. The contention of the ld. AR that comparability can be compromised under the TNMM is not tenable. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 533 (Del) has held that selection of comparables does not differ with the method adopted. It held that comparables should be selected on the basis of similarity, even under the TNMM. 18. In addition, we find that the assessee has two segments, namely, Manufacturing segment and Trading segment. Separate profitability and benchmarking has been don…

Ina Bearings India Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that

ITA 148/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.148/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

…profitability of this company is not ascertainable, which renders it incomparable. The contention of the ld. AR that comparability can be compromised under the TNMM is not tenable. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 533 (Del) has held that selection of comparables does not differ with the method adopted. It held that comparables should be selected on the basis of similarity, even under the TNMM. 18. In addition, we find that the assessee has two segments, namely, Manufacturing segment and Trading segment. Separate profitability and benchmarking has been don…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Minda Acoustic Ltd. (Now Minda Industries Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed in-liminie

ITA 1759/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR)
Section 144C

…that reference to safe-harbour rules has been made. So it is not a case where DRP has allowed relief by 5 following safe-harbour rules. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 377 ITR 533 (Delhi) to submit that differences in high end services and low-end services leads to substantial differences in FAR and the same is true about core and non-core which is akin to high end and low-end services. Explaining the difference between core and non-core activities in auto industries, the Ld. Counsel comparing the car with human body, subm…

M/S Volvo India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1537/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153(1)Section 18

…utsources major portion of its activities, in the following decisions and it was held that this company is not comparable with a company providing ITES to its AE such as the Assessee: (i) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions P. Ltd 377 ITR 533 (Del) held that this company was outsourcing its activity of providing ITES to its AE and this would have a bearing on its profitability and therefore this company cannot be compared with a company providing ITES to its AE on its own. (ii) In the case of Pr. CIT vs New River Software Services Pvt Ltd (ITA No 924/2016) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court…

Morningstar India Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1520/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimorningstar India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 9Th Floor, Platinum Tech Circle-17(1), Park, Delhi Plot No. 17/18, Sector-30A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Pan: Aaacx0362K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Chawla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra
Section 143Section 144CSection 92Section 920(3)Section 92D

…Morningstar India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT Assessment Year: 2010-11 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-1”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Morningstar India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, 9th Floor, Platinum Tech Circle-17(1), Park, Delhi Plot No. 17/18, Sector-30A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai PAN: AAACX0362K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. Piyush Chawla, CA Ms. Shruti Khimta, CA Revenue by: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/02/2019 Date of pronouncement 06/05/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by assess…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Omniglobe Information Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 1380/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Ward 19 (1), Vs. M/S. Omniglobe Information Technologies New Delhi. (I) Pvt. Ltd., E – 11, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. (Pan : Aaaco6606M) (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Shri Abhishek Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Ms. Nimita Pandey, Senior Dr

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144C

…der passed by the ld. DRP contended inter alia that Eclerx is functionally not comparable; that it has exceptional year of operation; and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 377 ITR 533 (Del.). 13. Undisputedly, the taxpayer is into providing BPO/Data Processing Services (ITES) to its AE whereas Eclerx is into providing outsourcing KP services as has been held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by returning following findings :- “37. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the pres…

Travelex India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8192/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 143(3)

…This fact is clearly discernible from the low employee cost of the company which is evident from the financial statements filed in the paperbook. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ramp Green Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2015] 377 ITR 533 (Del.), has held that this company cannot be treated as comparable to other companies. Similar view has been expressed in various other decisions of not only different High Courts but different Benches of the Tribunal as submitted in the legal paperbook filed before us. That being the case, following the consistent view expressed in the judicial…

Stmicroelectronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as discussed above

ITA 4888/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…work to outside vendors cannot be compared to a company which is performing all the function of its business itself. Reliance to support the above contention was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions P. Ltd 377 ITR 533 (Del) wherein the Hon’ble High Court rejected companies engaged in outsourcing of services to outside vendors as comparable to companies performing such services using their own employees and resources. The aforesaid order was followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs New River Software Services Pvt Ltd (ITA No 924/2016).…

Ceva Freight (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 6135/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit (Now Merged With Ceva Logistics Circle-1(1), Gurgaon India Private Limited W.E.F. April, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 1, 2016 Vide Order Dated Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog November 9, 2017 Of National Vihar, Phase-V Company Law Tribunal) Gurgaon Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- 18, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- Circle-1(1), 18, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Vihar, Phase-V Gurgaon Aaacc2674H Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 1(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Vs Dcit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 11(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building Circle 1(1) No. 10, Gurgaon Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92F

…of mini ratna I PSC in A.Y. 2006-07. Therefore, there is difference in functional profile of Balmer, Lawrie & Co. Ltd. from the assessee company. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Rampgreen Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT 377 ITR 533. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that this comparable should not be considered. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO/ Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR further submitted that Balmer, Lawrie & Co. Ltd.is comparable chosen by the assessee only in its TP study. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available…

M/S Ceva Freight (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

ITA 1297/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit (Now Merged With Ceva Logistics Circle-1(1), Gurgaon India Private Limited W.E.F. April, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 1, 2016 Vide Order Dated Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog November 9, 2017 Of National Vihar, Phase-V Company Law Tribunal) Gurgaon Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- 18, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- Circle-1(1), 18, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Vihar, Phase-V Gurgaon Aaacc2674H Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 1(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Vs Dcit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 11(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building Circle 1(1) No. 10, Gurgaon Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92F

…of mini ratna I PSC in A.Y. 2006-07. Therefore, there is difference in functional profile of Balmer, Lawrie & Co. Ltd. from the assessee company. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Rampgreen Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT 377 ITR 533. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that this comparable should not be considered. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO/ Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR further submitted that Balmer, Lawrie & Co. Ltd.is comparable chosen by the assessee only in its TP study. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available…

Ceva Freight (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 1739/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit (Now Merged With Ceva Logistics Circle-1(1), Gurgaon India Private Limited W.E.F. April, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 1, 2016 Vide Order Dated Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog November 9, 2017 Of National Vihar, Phase-V Company Law Tribunal) Gurgaon Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- 18, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- Circle-1(1), 18, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Vihar, Phase-V Gurgaon Aaacc2674H Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 1(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Vs Dcit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 11(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building Circle 1(1) No. 10, Gurgaon Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92F

…of mini ratna I PSC in A.Y. 2006-07. Therefore, there is difference in functional profile of Balmer, Lawrie & Co. Ltd. from the assessee company. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Rampgreen Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT 377 ITR 533. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that this comparable should not be considered. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO/ Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR further submitted that Balmer, Lawrie & Co. Ltd.is comparable chosen by the assessee only in its TP study. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available…

M/S. Ceva Freight (India) Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2434/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit (Now Merged With Ceva Logistics Circle-1(1), Gurgaon India Private Limited W.E.F. April, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 1, 2016 Vide Order Dated Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog November 9, 2017 Of National Vihar, Phase-V Company Law Tribunal) Gurgaon Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- 18, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- Circle-1(1), 18, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Vihar, Phase-V Gurgaon Aaacc2674H Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 1(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Vs Dcit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 11(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building Circle 1(1) No. 10, Gurgaon Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92F

…of mini ratna I PSC in A.Y. 2006-07. Therefore, there is difference in functional profile of Balmer, Lawrie & Co. Ltd. from the assessee company. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Rampgreen Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT 377 ITR 533. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that this comparable should not be considered. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO/ Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR further submitted that Balmer, Lawrie & Co. Ltd.is comparable chosen by the assessee only in its TP study. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available…

Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5682/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit (Now Merged With Ceva Logistics Circle-1(1), Gurgaon India Private Limited W.E.F. April, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 1, 2016 Vide Order Dated Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog November 9, 2017 Of National Vihar, Phase-V Company Law Tribunal) Gurgaon Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- 18, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Sewa Tower, Plot No. 19, Sectdor- Circle-1(1), 18, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, 2Nd Floor, Block, C, Maruti Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Industrial Complex, Udyog Vihar Vihar, Phase-V Gurgaon Aaacc2674H Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 1(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Vs Dcit Formerly Known As Egl Eagle Circle 11(1) Global Logistic (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building No. 10 Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber (Respondent) City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Appellant) Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 1St Floor, Tower C, Dlf Building Circle 1(1) No. 10, Gurgaon Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaacc2674H (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92F

…of mini ratna I PSC in A.Y. 2006-07. Therefore, there is difference in functional profile of Balmer, Lawrie & Co. Ltd. from the assessee company. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Rampgreen Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT 377 ITR 533. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that this comparable should not be considered. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO/ Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR further submitted that Balmer, Lawrie & Co. Ltd.is comparable chosen by the assessee only in its TP study. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Md Everywhere (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 323/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Md Everywhere (India) Pvt. Ward-16(3), Ltd, New Delhi Level-4, Rectangle-1, Commercial Complex, D-4, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaecm2671G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Saveta Nakra Datta, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 144CSection 92C

…clocks comparable company is providing the KPO services. It is also an accepted principle that low end BPO service provider cannot be compared with the knowledge process outsourcing unit. Such is also the mandate of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of 377 ITR 533 in Rampgreen solutions private limited vs CIT. The learned departmental representative could not point out any infirmity with respect to the above functional profile of the assessee as well as the functional profile of the comparable company. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned dispute resolution panel in excl…

Haldor Topsoe (I) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 654/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. H.P. Aggarwal, FCA, and Ms. Prashuka Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…ITA No.-654/Del/2015. Haldor Topsoe India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 654/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Haldor Topsoe India Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Income Elegance Tower, 2nd floor, Vs. Tax, Jasola District Centre, Circle 10(1), New Delhi-110025. New Delhi. PAN No: AABCH7781F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sh. H.P. Aggarwal, FCA, and Ms. Prashuka Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT (DR) ORDER PER: ANADEE NATH MISSH…

M/S Timex Group India Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 845/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92B

…ow management. So, providing high end health care services require application of specialized knowledge and skill, which otherwise cannot be compared with routine ITES provider. 39. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rampgreen Solutions P. Ltd. vs. CIT – (2015) 377 ITR 533 (Delhi) defined the Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) as a high value added process chain wherein the process are depending on advance skills, domain knowledge and the experience of persons carrying on such processes and as such, is understood as the high end of ITES in terms of value addition. In the Rampgreen Solutions P. Ltd. vs. CIT (su…