How many judgments cite Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

196 judgments on BharatTax cite Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (377 ITR 533), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10B(3), Section 133(6), Section 10B(2)(a), Section 234B, Section 10(B)(3), Section 108(1)(e).

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 234B Section 10(B)(3)Section 108(1)(e)Section 10A Section 10B(1)(e)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

captive service provider section 92c(2)resulting company working capital adjustment transactional net margin method far analysis related party transaction demerger comparable companies tested party strategic investment amalgamation

Judgments citing Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Visteon Engineering Center (India) Private Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 316/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ms. Nupoor ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru

Section 143(3)

…ubmitted that the Tribunal in various cases has held that Coral Hub Limited is not a good comparable with a company engaged in ITES. To support his submissions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 377 ITR 533 (Delhi); ii. John Deere India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 77 taxmann.com 7 (Pune-Trib.); iii. PTC Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 67 SOT 138 (Pune-Trib.). 4.5 In ground No. 6 of the appeal the assessee has assailed application of export turnover filter in selection of comparable companies. The ld. AR fairly admitted that in the earlier assessment ye…

Exxon Mobil Company India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1)), Mumbai

ITA 3601/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave & Ms. Kadambari DaveFor Respondent: Dr. Saurabh Deshpande-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40

…ribunal, Hyderabad Bench:– i) Capital IQ Information Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2013] 32 taxmann.com 21; and ii) HSBC Electronic Data Processing India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 136. 20. In fact, in case of Rampgreen Solution Pvt. Ltd., 377 ITR 533, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court referring to the decision of the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in case of Capital IQ Information Systems Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has held that e–Clerx Services Ltd. being a KPO service provider cannot be compared to BPO service provider. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude e–Clerx Services Lt…

Kpit Cummins Global Business Solutions Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 525/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…e in this regard placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in Cummins Turbo Technologies Ltd. Vs. DCIT (IT) (2016) 68 taxmann.com 273 (Pune – Trib.) and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 533 (Del). 17. Another concern which the assessee wants to be excluded is Genesys International Corporation Ltd., which was also high end KPO service provider. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Vistcon Engineering Center (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 70 taxmann.com 248 (Pune – Trib.). 18. The learned…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Kpit Technologies Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 459/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

Kpit Cummins Global Business Solutions Ltd., (Now Merged With Kpit Cummins Infosystems Ltd), Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 246/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

Mps Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical

ITA 963/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन गणेशन . एस . आर . , "या"यक सद"य एवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 963/Chny/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. MPS Limited, The Deputy Commissioner of Income RR Tower IV Super A, Vs. Tax, 16/17 Thiruvika Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle 4, Guindy, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 032. Chennai – 600 034. [PAN: AAACM 2423L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ&क'ओरसे/Appellant by : Shri…

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. General Atlantic P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1717/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka a/wFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.1717/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–5(1)(1), Mumbai v/s General Atlantic Pvt. Ltd. 151–152, 15th Floor, Maker Chambers–VI ……………. Respondent 220, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AABCG7917Q ITA no.2207/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) General Atlantic Pvt. Ltd. Level–19, Birla Aurora Dr. Annie Besant Road ……………. Appellant Maharshi Karve Marg Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 PAN – AABCG7917Q v/s Dy. Commissio…

Exxon Mobil Company India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6708/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande a/w

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…ibunal, Hyderabad Bench:– i) Capital IQ Information Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2013] 32 taxmann.com 21; and ii) HSBC Electronic Data Processing India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 136. 20. In fact, in case of Rampgreen Solution Pvt. Ltd., 377 ITR 533, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court referring to the decision of the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in case of Capital IQ Information Systems Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has held that e–Clerx Services Ltd. being a KPO service provider cannot be compared to BPO service provider. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude e–Clerx Services Lt…

Xlhealth Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

ITA 2311/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswarajan Sarmal, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…le of the company it is clear that it is into knowledge process outsourcing which is high value added services which means high end Business Process Outsourcing. Thus the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in 377 ITR 533 (Delhi) explained the distinction between business process outsourcing and knowledge process outsourcings as under: “34. We have reservations as to the Tribunal’s aforesaid view in Maersk Global Centers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). As indicated above, the expression ‘BPO’ and ‘KPO’ are, plainly, understood in the sense that whereas, BPO does not n…

M/S. Schlumberger India Technology Centre P. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 640/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.640/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11 M/S. Schlumberger India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Schlumberger Global Support Centre Ltd.-India Branch) Office No.701, 7Th Floor, Building No.9, Commerzone, Survey No.144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Off Airport Road, Yerwada अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411006 …. Pan: Aalcs2048C Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax (It)-Ii, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

For Appellant: Shri Kamal SawhneyFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “ए” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, 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.640/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11 M/s. Schlumberger India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as Schlumberger Global Support Centre Ltd.-India Branch) Office No.701, 7th Floor, Building No.9, Commerzone, Survey No.144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Off Airport Road, Yerwada अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411006 …. PAN: AALCS2048C Vs. The Dy.…

DCIT RG 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Anglo Eastern Shipping Management (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1500/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande - DR

Section 143Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “केकेकेके” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं रिवश सूद रिवश सूद, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं रिवश सूद रिवश सूद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1500/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT – 9(1)(…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Everest Business Advisory India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 41/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Senior DR

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.41/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) DCIT, Circle 11 (1), vs. M/s. Everest Business Advisory India New Delhi. (P) Ltd., A – 1/B-27, Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110 058. (PAN : AABCE2871R) ITA No.1191/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/s. Everest Business Advisory India vs. DCIT, Circle 11 (1), (P) Ltd., New Delhi. A – 1/B-27, Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110 058. (PAN : AABCE2871R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: Ms. Vandana Bhandare, Advocate REVENU…

Everest Business Advisory India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1191/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Senior DR

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Transcend Mt Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4501/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Baru, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 234BSection 92C(2)

…by the taxpayer, available at page 412 of the paper book, it has also come on record that Vishal is into print on demand services and as such, is not comparable with the taxpayer. 23. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT – (2015) 377 ITR 533 (Delhi), while examining the comparability of Vishal with Rampgreen Solutions (P.) Ltd., a vendors and service providers. 24. Vishal has been excluded as a comparable for benchmarking the international transactions in taxpayer’s own case for AY 2005- 06 in ITA No.6043/Del/2012, available at pages 11 & 12, on ground of different business model…

Transcend Mt Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4048/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Baru, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 234BSection 92C(2)

M/S Vestergaard Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6670/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘I-1’, New Delhi Before : Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No. 6670/Del./2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vestergaard Asia Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 26(2), 302, Ractangle One Bldg., New Delhi. D-4, Saket, New Delhi. PAN - AACCV2729E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Amrender Kumar, CIT/DR & Sh. Kumar Pranav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement 30.11.2017 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/…

Vertex Customer Services India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1508/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2Section 920Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1508/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) M/s. Vertex Customer Services vs. DCIT, Circle 28 (1), India Private Limited, New Delhi. (now merged with Vertex Customer Management India Private Ltd.), 5th Floor, Tower A, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurgaon – 122 002 (Haryana). (PAN : AADCV7256M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 12.10.2017 Date of Order : 28.11.201…

Agilis Information Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 555/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) Agilis Information Technologies India Vs ACIT Pvt. Ltd. Cirlc-12(1) (Now known as Infogix International New Delhi Pvt. Ltd.) E-11, Rajouri Garden New Delhi AAECA2786J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv, Ms. Dipika Agarwal, Adv Respondent by Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing 30.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement 15.11.2017 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal has been filed by the assess…

Degania Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 895/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishidegania Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 251, Sector-6, Circle-1(1), Imt Manesar, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan:Aaccd0262A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrender Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 92C

…le. But it has been included stating that TNMM method allows same degree of flexibility intolerance in the manner of selection of the comparable because under this method net margins are compared. Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Rampgreen solutions Ltd versus CIT 377 ITR 533 (Delhi) has held that:- “42. Before concluding, there is yet another aspect of the matter that needs consideration. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that while applying the transactional net margin method, broad functionality is sufficient and it is not necessary that further effort be taken to find a comparable entity rendering services of s…

Omniglobe Information Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1003/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Omniglobe Information Ito, Ward- 19(1), Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. E-11, Rajouri Garden, Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

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

…hat this company was also directed to be deleted from the list of comparables on account of non-availability of segmental data. Referring to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 377 ITR 533 he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has observed that in terms of provision of Rule 10B(2)(a), comparability of controlled and uncontrolled transactions shall be judged with reference to specific service/product characteristics. 12. So far as TCS E-Serve Limited is concerned, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted tha…