“FAR analysis”

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which

Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 209/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Applied Materials India Pvt. Ltd., Unit -5, 3Rd Floor, The Deputy Explorer Building, Commissioner Of International Tech Income Tax, Park, Circle – 1(1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaeca2635C Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

pressed and accordingly they are not adjudicated herein. 6. Before we undertake the comparability analysis, it is sinequa non to understand the FAR analysis of assessee under the SWD segment. Page 16 IT(TP)A No. 209/Bang/2021 FAR Page 17 IT(TP)A No. 209/Bang/2021 Page ... 209/Bang/2021 Page 21 IT(TP)A No. 209/Bang/2021 Page 22 IT(TP)A No. 209/Bang/2021 Characterisation Based on the FAR analysis it may be concluded that Applied India is an IT service provider who is insulated from a majority of the business risks and is engaged in rendering services

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

study of the assessee which is placed on record at pages 217 to 803 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The FAR analysis is also placed on record at page 246 to 250 of the paper book I. The list of comparable finally selected by the assessee ... Building Systems (supra) without going into the details of how the same is applicable to assessee’s case in terms functions, assets and risk (FAR) analysis and without any bench marking. In the said case the issue involved was not a pure reimbursement of cost but cost sharing exercise

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Astra Zenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

study of the assessee which is placed on record at pages 217 to 803 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The FAR analysis is also placed on record at page 246 to 250 of the paper book I. The list of comparable finally selected by the assessee ... Building Systems (supra) without going into the details of how the same is applicable to assessee’s case in terms functions, assets and risk (FAR) analysis and without any bench marking. In the said case the issue involved was not a pure reimbursement of cost but cost sharing exercise

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which

M/S. Radisys India Limited (Formerly Known As Radisys India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

assessee is seeking exclusion/inclusion of comparables under SWD & MSS segment. Before we undertake the comparability analysis, it is sine-qua-non to understand the FAR analysis of the assessee under the two segments. Functions Performed As per the agreement entered by Radisys India with its Associated Enterprise, Radisys India shall ... wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

submitted that inclusion or exclusion of a comparable has to be necessarily justified on the basis of facts available on record, the FAR analysis and the information in the annual reports submitted for each year and not on the basis of judicial precedent. 12.1.17 We have heard the rival submissions

M/S. Ig Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Trib), wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company

Dover India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.460/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Dover India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Bagmane Laurel, 1St Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Bengaluru. C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aaaci 3920 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 29.03.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Providing Software Development Services (Swd Services), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee

high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on (functions performed, Assets employed, Risks Assumed) FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company

Mfx Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

even though the same did not fulfil one or more filters applied by the learned TPO or were not comparable to the Appellant on FAR analysis: (a) Inteq Software Private Limited (b) Infobeans Technologies Limited (c) CG-VAK Software and Export Limited 13. The lower income tax authorities have erred ... wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which

M/S. Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which