How many judgments cite Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT?

131 judgments on BharatTax cite Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (114 ITD 448), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Section 147, Section 148, Section 14A, Section 151.

Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

114 ITD 448Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#783 most cited

What is Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

For transfer pricing purposes, functionally dissimilar entities that have significant business differences must be excluded from the list of comparables for benchmarking analysis. It also provides guidance on the non-allocation of advertisement, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses to other entities when incurred solely for the assessee's business.

131

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT · 114 ITD 448 · transfer pricing · comparables exclusion · functional dissimilarity · benchmarking analysis · AMP expenses · allocation of AMP expenditure · section 92BA · working capital adjustment · section 37(1) · associated enterprises

Also reported as

118 TTJ 865

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 148 Section 14A Section 151 Section 37(1)Section 80IC

Issues it is cited on

amp expenditure section 92ba true and full disclosure captive service provider sanction under section 151 transfer pricing order working capital adjustment fresh tangible material section 148(2)sanctioning authority specified domestic transaction tested party

Judgments citing Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

M/S.Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2315/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…nnot be regarded to be comparable to the Assessee company and accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of CIT(A) while he excluded this company on the turnover criteria following the decision of this tribunal in : Sony India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 114 ITD 448 Delhi, E-Gain Communication, 2008 TIOL 282 ITAT (Pune) Deloittee Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.1082/Hyd/2010 Genisys Integrating System (India)(P.) Ltd. vs DCIT, 53 Sot 159 (Bang)" 6. The said findings of the Tribunal in respect of the said three Companies are on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record. We find no infirmity…

M/S Thomson Reuters India Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 1206/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT - DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234B

…ing related party transactions in excess of 15% of sales/revenue. In support of this proposition, the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bench of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Sony India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 114 ITD 448 . The learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to para 115.3 of the order wherein the Tribunal has held that ".....We are further of the view that an entity can be taken as uncontrolled if its related party transactions do not exceed 10 to 15% of total revenue. Within the above limit, transactions cannot be held to be significant to in…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and the cross objection filed by

ITA 499/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 10A

…ax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case of Simontech (supra) has held that no separate adjustment is required on account of risk and functional difference, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench in the case of Sony India Pvt. Limited V/s. DCIT (114 ITD 448) has held that deduction on account of ownership of intangibles, risk factors can be allowed. In aforesaid view of the matter, we are inclined to accept the view favorable to the assessee. We therefore uphold the direction of the CIT (A) in this regard in allowing the benefit of risk adjustments at 1%. Accordingly, the ground raised by the depart…

ACIT, CC-Xx, Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited, Kolkata

In the result, this ground is allowed

ITA 1370/KOL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Navin Verma & Nitin Agarwal, ARs

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A Nos.1370 to 1374/Kol/2010 Assessment Years: 2001-02 to 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Central Circle-XX, Kolkata. (PAN: AABCP8017C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 07.03.2017 Date of pronouncement: 15.03.2017 For the Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT For the Respondent: Shri Navin Verma & Nitin Agarwal, ARs ORDER Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM: All these appeals by revenue are arising out of separate orders of CIT(A)-XXXII…

M/S Logitech Engineering & Design India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 287/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Vishal Kalsa, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Preeti Garg, CIT-DR

…ctions can be considered for selecting comparables. Accordingly, it has been held that RPT up to 25% is considered reasonable in the following cases. • Philips Software Centre Private Ltd vs ACIT TTJ 721 (Bangalore) • Sony India Private Limited vs DCIT: [2008]114 ITD 448 (Delhi) • Global Logic India (P) Ltd. vs DCIT: [2013] 56 SOT 373 (Delhi) • Actis Advisers Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT: ITA No 5277 & ITA No. 958/Del/2012 • ACIT vs Hapag Lloyd Global Services (P) Lad ITA No 8499/ Mum/2010 • Thyssenkrupp Industries India (P) Ltd. vs .&.CIT[2013)154 TTJ 689 (Mum) We heard the rival submissions. As submitted by the assessee,…

Fluor Daniel India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly

ITA 5493/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), Room No. M/S. Flour Daniel India Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, Building No. 8C, Dlf 313, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Cyber City, Dlf City Phase-Ii, Estate, New Delhi Gurgaon Pan : Aaacf0927G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Himanshu Shekhar Sinha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. T.M. Shiva Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 06.01.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Dated 30/09/2010 Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2006-07 . This Order Was Passed By The Assessing Officer In Compliance To The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 21/09/2010. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271Section 32Section 92Section 92C

…AT in M/s. Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, (IT(TP)A No.ll67/Bang/2010) vi. Hon'ble Bangalore ITAT in M/s. Symbol Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., (IT(TP)A No.391/Bang/2012) vii. Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in Sony India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 114 ITD 448 (Delhi) viii. Hon'ble Bangalore ITAT in M/s. 24/7 Customer .Com Pvt. Ltd (TS-708-ITAT- 2012(Bang)-TP) ix. Hon'ble Bangalore ITAT in M/s. 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. (TS-359-ITAT- 2013(Bang)-TP) 5.6 In view of above submissions, the learned counsel prayed that ‘Alphageo’ having related party transactions as 16.80% of it sales, it should be reje…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 615/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92D

…11 " Allcargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA Nos. 4909 & 4910/Mum/2012 " AWB India (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 6480/Del/2012 " DCIT Vs Air Liquide Engineering India (P.) Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1040 & 1159/Hyd/2011 & 1408/Hyd/2010 " Sony India (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 114 ITD 448 (Del) " Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 6814/Del/2014 " Goldstar Jewellery Ltd. Vs JCIT in ITA No. 6570/Mum/2012 " Micro Inks Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 1668/Ahd/2006 " ACIT Vs Information Systems Resources Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 7757/Mum/2012 20. It was further submitted that no separate adjustment on account of interest was to be made…

Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 92D

Utstarcom Inc. (India Branch), Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5848/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Sachdev, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shiva Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 92C(2)Section 92D

…provisions contained in Rule 10B (3) also mandate adjustments wherever there are material differences in the situations of comparables and the taxpayer. The different benches of the ITATs have upheld such adjustment [Vedaris Technology ITAT (Del); Sony India [114 ITD 448(Del), Mentor Graphics, E Gain communication 2008-TIOL-282-ITAT- PUNE, Global Vantedge 2010-TI01-24-ITAT-DEL, TNT India P 9 ITA Nos.5848/Del./2011 Ltd 2011-TII-39-ITAT BANG-TP/etcl. The AO/TPO is, therefore, directed to grant working capital adjustment based on the OECD formula by taking 10.25% as PLR as this is the rate charged by the State Ban…

M/S. Sojitz India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1195/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Jain, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)

…case laws: " DCIT Vs Nortel Networks India (P.) Ltd. (2016) 176 TTJ 25 (Del.-Trib.) " DCIT Vs Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. (2010) 4 ITR (Trib.) 606 " ACIT Vs Wockhardt Ltd. (2010) 6 Taxmann.com 78 (Mum.- ITAT) 18 Sojitz India Pvt. Ltd. " Sony India Vs DCIT (2008) 114 ITD 448 (Del.) " Sapient Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2011) Taxmann.com 69 (Del.-Trib.) " DCIT Vs B.P. India Services (P.) Ltd. (2011) 48 SOT 253 15. As regards to the functional comparability, it was stated that M/s Besant Raj International Ltd. had been included by the assessee after carrying out a comprehensive search strategy, details and informati…

Cgi Information Systems and Management, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1227/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1227(Bang) 2012 (Assessment year : 2008-09) M/s CGI information Systems and Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Electronics City Tower-2, No.95 and 95/2, Electronic City, Phase-I (West) Bangalore -560 100 Pan No.AAACI1994C Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(2), Bangalore Respondent Assessee by : Shri T. Suryanarayana. Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT Date of hearing : 09-08-2016 Date of pronouncement: : -0…

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is hereby treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 864/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 15(2)(1), Unit No.702, 7Th Floor, 4Th Room No.403, Floor, A – Wing, Hon’Ble Supreme Aayakar Bhavan, Court Business Park, Vs. M.K. Road, Behind Lake Castle, Mumbai - 400020 Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan: Aaccn0274A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.R Ms. Chandni Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand, D.R

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

…h offered by the assessee as a functional comparable becomes a tainted comparable due to a very high percentage of significant related party transaction. The Tribunal had also taken into consideration the case laws namely in the case of “Soni India Pvt. Ltd.” 114 ITD 448; “ADP Pvt. Ltd.” 45 SOT 172 Hyderabad; “Global Logic India P. Ltd.” (2011) 46 SOT 285 and observed that in the said cases 15% and 25% related party transactions respectively were held to be acceptable which position has been affirmed in the order of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Hapeg Lloyd Global Services” wherein also re…

DCIT vs. M/S Fair Isaac India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1776/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodiasmt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I(DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1776/Bang/2013 Assessment year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Fair Isaac India Software Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Circle 11(3), 135, Old Airport Road, Bangalore. Kodihally, Bangalore – 560 017. PAN: AABCF 7670G APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.24/Bang/2014 Assessment year : 2009-10 M/s. Fair Isaac India Software Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 017. Circle 11(3), PAN: AABCF 7670G Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPON…

DCIT vs. M/S Vmoksha Technology Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 595/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(5), Bangalore. … Appellant

For Appellant: Smt.Swapna Das, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Bharath, CA

Section 10A

…is more than Rs.200 crore. The CIT(A) held that the companies whose turnover is only between Rs.1 crore and Rs.200 are alone be taken into consideration for the purpose of making TP study following decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Sony India (P) Ltd.,(114 ITD 448)(Del), Genesis Integrating Systems (India) P.Ltd. (53 SOT 159)(Bang.). The relevant finding of the CIT(A) is as under: IT(TP)A No.595/Bang/2013 Page 5 of 6 An identical issue had come up before the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal, to which one of us viz., the AM is a party, in the case of M/s.Societe Generale Global Solution Centre Pvt. Ltd.…

M/S. G4S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1540/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: shri Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)Section 92C

…laced reliance upon the following decisions which are as under: i) Qual Core Logic Lt. Vs DCIT 52 SOT 574 (Hyd.) ii) Schefenacker Motherson Ltd. Vs ITO 123 TTJ 509 (Del.) iii) Skoda Auto India (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT 30 SOT 319 (Pune) iv) Sony India (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 114 ITD 448 (Del.) v) E-Gain Communications (P) Ltd. Vs ITO 23 SOT 385 (Pune) 10 I.T.A.No..1540/Del/2012 vi) Mentor Graphics (Noida) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT 109 ITD 101 (Del.) 9.4 In view of above and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the above decisions of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that Ld. TPO was wrong in not…

DCIT vs. M/S Netapp (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 881/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II

Section 1O

…& 101 of his order and the same are reproduced hereunder; “100. It was argued that the TPO had considered certain comparable with abnormal profits and negative margins. The Delhi Bench of the Hon’ble ITAT had in the case of Sony India (P)Ltd., v DCIT(2008) 114 ITD 448(Del.) upheld the objection of assessee on inclusion of a comparable when distinctive differences like size and turnover materially affected performance or prices of products. It had been held in E-Gain Communication Pvt. Ltd., (2008) –TIOL-282-ITAT-Pune) that there was no justification for considering oversized companies and the ITA No.881 & C.O…

Saic India Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6464/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: S/Shri S.D. Kapila, R.R. MauryaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Jain, CIT DR

Section 40Section 92C

…has further submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi, ITAT has also upheld the need of making working capital adjustment in following judgments. • Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[2007] 109 ITD 101/ 18 SOT 76 (Delhi) • Sony India (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT[2008] 114 ITD 448 (Delhi) Thus in light of the provisions of Rule 10B(1)(e) and the Hon'ble ITAT judgments, it has been pleaded to grant the Appellant the benefit of working capital adjustment. 35 ITA No.6464/Del./2012 5.3 Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand relied upon the order of the TPO. 5.4 The DRP in its order has not dealt with the issue pro…

Lrn Technology and Content Solutions (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 329/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasad, आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.329/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Lrn Technology & The Dcit-Circle 9(2), बनाम/ Content Solutions (India) Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-400 020 Nirlon Knowledge Park, Block B6, 3Rd Floor, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400 063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Karishma R. Phatarphekar Shri Keerthika R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Sharma

For Appellant: Karishma RFor Respondent: Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

…not be regarded to be comparable to the Asseessee company and accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of CIT(A) while he excluded this company on the turnover criteria following the decision of this tribunal in : Sony India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 114 ITD 448 Delhi, E-Gain Communication, 2008 TIOL 282 ITAT (Pune) Deloittee Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1082/Hyd/2010 9 Genisys Integrating System (India)(P.) Ltd. vs DCIT,, 53 Sot 159 (Bang)” 6. The said findings of the Tribunal in respect of the said three Companies are on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record. We find no infi…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Globe Op Financial Services (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1610/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.1610/Mum./2011 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–3(1), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Appellant 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 v/s M/s. GlobeOp Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd., A–31, Fortune, 2000 ……………. Respondent Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 PAN – AABCG9370R Revenue by : Shri Sambit Mishra Assessee by : Shri Saurabh Soparkar a/w Shri Bandish Soparkar Date of Hearing – 16.03.2016 Date of Order – 13.06.2016 O R D E R P…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sunquest Information Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1604/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T(Tp).A No.1604/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore .. Appellant V. M/S. Sunquest Information Systems (India) P. Ltd, 1St Floor, Eagle Ridge, Embassy Gold Links Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore 560 071 .. Respondent Pan : Aaecs2754E I.T(Tp).A No.1666/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) (By The Assessee) Assessee By : Shri. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 05.05.2016 Pronounced On : 27 .05.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT

Section 10Section 92

…infinite is a reasonable classification as turnover base. 2. E-Gain Communication (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2008) 118 TTJ (Pune) 354 : (2008) 13 DTR (Pune)(Trib) 65; 3. Sony India (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2008) 118 TTJ (Del) 865 : (2008) 14 DTR (Del)(Trib) 228 : (2008) 114 ITD 448 (Del); 4. Dy. CIT vs. Indo American Jewellery Ltd., ITA No. 6194/Mum/2008 [reported at (2010) 131 TTJ (Mumbai) 163 : (2010) 40 DTR (Mumbai)(Trib) 386—Ed.]; IT(TP)A.1604 & 1666/Bang/2014 Page - 15 5. Philips Software Centre (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2008) 119 TTJ (Bang) 721 : (2008) 15 DTR (Bang)(Trib) 505 : (2008) 26 SOT 226 (Bang); 6. Asstt. CI…