Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

137 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#3444 most cited

What is Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

A provision for doubtful debt cannot be considered part of operating cost when calculating operating profit, as it is a non-operating expense.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT · provision for doubtful debt · operating cost · non-operating expense · operating profit · transfer pricing · comparable uncontrolled transactions

Judgments citing Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

Tavant Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1592/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-1, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “ A ” BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(T.P) A. Nos.292/Bang/2014 & 1592/Bang/2012 (Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/s. Tavant Technologies Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income India Pvt. Ltd., Tax, No.12, CSRIE-II, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. Guava Garden, 5th Block, Koaramangala, Bangalore-560 095 PAN AABCT 3261E Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Gurunathan, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-1, Bengaluru. Date of Hearing : 02.03.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 31.05…

Misys Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are

ITA 491/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…including product design service, innovation design, engineering service, visual computing labs, etc. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 137 ITD 1/22 taxmann.com 96. 31. The DRP found that this company is not functionally comparable with assessee company as it is engaged in diversified activities even in the software development services. The DRP has followed the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies India (P.) Ltd. (supra). 32. We have heard the l…

Gt Nexus Software Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed and revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 409/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…rsified activities including product design service, innovation design, engineering service, visual computing labs, etc. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, 137 ITD 1 (Mum). 31. The DRP found that this company is not functionally comparable with assessee company as it is engaged in diversified activities even in the software development services. The DRP has followed the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 32. We have heard the ld. DR as well as l…

M/S Amd India Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 1487/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)

…rsified activities including product design service, innovation design, engineering service, visual computing labs, etc. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, 137 ITD 1 (Mum). 31. The DRP found that this company is not functionally comparable with assessee company as it is engaged in diversified activities even in the software development services. The DRP has followed the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 32. We have heard the ld. DR as well as…

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

…015 Page - 10 (Delhi) of 2016 • 24/7 Customer.com Pvt. Ltd : ITA No. 227/Bang/2010 • DCIT vs PMC - Sierra India Pvt. Ltd. : lT(TP)A No. 882/Bang/2013 • Lam Research vs DCIT: IT(TP)A No. 1437/Bang/2014 • Telecordia Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs ACII: [2012] 137 ITD 1 (Mumbai) CIT vs Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd: [2013] 262 CTR 291 (Delhi) 2. Larsen & Turbo Infotech Ltd : The DRP rejected this company on the ground that the turnover of the company is very high i.e. INR 1,777 crores which is 134 times the turnover of the assessee from ITES business and therefore it was correctly excluded from the list of c…

Cerner Healthcare Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 44/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri.Chavali S. Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 10ASection 192Section 40

…esign service, IT(TP)A.69 & 44/Bang/2015 Page - 16 innovation design, engineering service, visual computing labs, etc. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, 137 ITD 1 (Mum). 16. The DRP found that this company is not functionally comparable with assessee company as it is engaged in diversified activities even in the software development services. The DRP has followed the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 17. We have heard the ld. DR as well as l…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Arcot R & D Software (P) Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well as C

ITA 393/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…rsified activities including product design service, innovation design, engineering service, visual computing labs, etc. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, 137 ITD 1 (Mum). 13 IT(T.P)A No.393/Bang/2015 & C.O. No.148/Bang/2015 31. The DRP found that this company is not functionally comparable with assessee company as it is engaged in diversified activities even in the software development services. The DRP has followed the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. L…

Acusis Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 442/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Sudhakar Rao, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 92C

…(P.) Ltd., Vs. Dy. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 715/53 SOT 159 (Bang.-Trib.) (b) Kodiak Networks (India) (P.) Ltd, V. Asstt. CIT [2012] 18 taxmann.com 32/51 SOT 191 (Bang.- Trib.) (c) Telcordia Technologies India (P.) Ltd., V. Asstt. CIT [2012] 22 taxmann.com 96/137 ITD 1 (Mum.-Trib.) We do not find any reason to differ with the ratio laid down in the above cases. Therefore, we direct the TPO/AO to exclude this company from the list of the comparables. (iii) M/s. Allsec Technologies Limited: The assessee company had argued for inclusion of this IT(TP)A No.442/Bang/2011& IT(TP)A No.444&445/Bang/2011 Page 15 of 39…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Applied Materials India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 180/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. R. Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 1O

…rsified activities including product design service, innovation design, engineering service, visual computing labs, etc. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, 137 ITD 1 (Mum). 31. The DRP found that this company is not functionally comparable with assessee company as it is engaged in diversified activities even in the software development services. The DRP has followed the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 32. We have heard the ld. DR as well as l…

Orange Business Services India Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 869/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

…e find that, as submitted by the assessee, the segmental details are also not available separately. Therefore, following the principle enunciated in the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012) 137 ITD 1/22 taxmann.com 96 (Mum.) that in the absence of segmental details/information a company it cannot be taken into account for comparability analysis, we hold that this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd. ought to be omitted from the set of comparables for the year under consideration. It is ordered accordingly. 5.4 On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. sup…

M/S. Lsi Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1380/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…be taken into account for comparability analysis for determining arms length price in the case of the assessee.” 29. The Tribunal has followed the finding of the coordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies India Private Ltd. v. ACIT, 137 ITD 1, wherein the Tribunal has given the reasons for functional dissimilarity of this company viz., Lucid Software Ltd. being in the product development. IT(TP)A Nos.1380 & 1381/Bang/2010 30. We find from the profit & loss account of this company that there is work-in-progress during the year under consideration as well as in the earlier year, therefo…

M/S. Fil India Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6867/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 Fil India Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Circle 11(1), 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi-110001 Pan: Aabcf 3695 C ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri G.C. Srivastava Adv. Shri Daksh S. Bhardwaj Adv. & Shri Anubhav Jain Adv. Assessee By : Shri A.M. Govil Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016. Date Of Order : 12/05/2016. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava Adv
Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…e find that, as submitted by the assessee, the segmental details are also not available separately. Therefore, following the principle enunciated in the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. eIT [2012J 137 ITD 1/22 taxmann.com 96 (Mum.) that in the absence of segmental details/information a company it cannot be taken into account for comparability analysis, We hold that this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd. ought to be omitted from the set of comparables for the year under consideration. It is ordered accordingly.” 31. As regards Wipro Technology Serv…

Dy.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. Sri. Siraj Salim Dhanani, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the CO of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 591/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. Geoge & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 1O

…sified activities including product design service, innovation design, engineering service, visual computing labs, etc. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, 137 ITD 1 (Mum). 31. The DRP found that this company is not functionally comparable with assessee company as it is engaged in diversified activities even in the software development services. The DRP has followed the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). IT(TP)A No.212/Bang/2015 & CO No.94/Ba…

Equant Solutions India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1202/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. :- 2010-11 Equant Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit (Now Known As Orange Business Circle 3 Services India Solutions (P) Ltd. Tower-B, 8Th Floor, Infinity Tower, Gurgaon Phase-Ii, Sector-25 Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce540P Assessee By: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal Ca

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 20ASection 234BSection 92CSection 92D

…e find that, as submitted by the assessee, the segmental details are also not available separately. Therefore, following the principle enunciated in the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Telcordia Technologies India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 137 ITD 1/22 taxmann.com 96 (Mum.) that in the absence of segmental details/information a company it cannot be taken into account for comparability analysis, We hold that this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd. ought to be omitted from the set of comparables for the year under consideration. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Sonata Software Limited 12 ITA N…