functions assets and risks — 6 judgments | BharatTax

CULVER MAX ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LMITED ( FORMERLY SONY PICTURES NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUCCESSOR OF TAJ TELEVISION INDIA PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 16 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7210/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Sony Pictures Networks Asst. Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income-Tax, (Successor Of Taj Television Circle 16(1) India Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Interface 7, 4Th Floor, Off Malad Room No. 467, Link Road, Malad (W), M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct5103D Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

appreciating that there was no change in the class of services or the rights between the parties. There was no change in the functions, assets and risks assumed. The same class of service was provided by the Appellant to the same AE throughout M/s Sony Pictures Networks India ... also the claim of the assessee that between these two halfs of the previous year there is no change in the Functions Assets and Risks Analysis (FAR) analysis. This is also reiterated in its written submission. Thus, undisputedly, the FAR for both the periods is same but Revenue sharing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,(ERSTWHILE VCOSTOMER SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1618/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

concept of KPO VS.BPO in comparability analysis, whereas in reality there is seamlessness in ITES functions and comparability analysis is bases on functions assets and risks? 4. Whether the Hon'ble DRP was justified in holding that Accentia Technologies Ltd. is a KPO, even while in reality the company ... ground that it is functionally comparable to the assessee company. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that there are material differences in functions, assets and risks and the company has diversified activities of software development engineering services. Therefore, it is submitted that ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. is functionally different

M/S. RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1404/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

concept of KPO VS.BPO in comparability analysis, whereas in reality there is seamlessness in ITES functions and comparability analysis is bases on functions assets and risks? 4. Whether the Hon'ble DRP was justified in holding that Accentia Technologies Ltd. is a KPO, even while in reality the company ... ground that it is functionally comparable to the assessee company. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that there are material differences in functions, assets and risks and the company has diversified activities of software development engineering services. Therefore, it is submitted that ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. is functionally different

HSBC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

ITA 8823/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, DR

Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

part of importantly it is a part of the same industry the same industry with with similar functions assets and similar functions assets and risks. risks. 6. Datamatics Financial Services Ltd Datamatics Financial Services Ltd Annual Report is available Annual Report is available

DCIT RG 8(2) (OSD), MUMBAI vs. HSBC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8753/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, DR

Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

part of importantly it is a part of the same industry the same industry with with similar functions assets and similar functions assets and risks. risks. 6. Datamatics Financial Services Ltd Datamatics Financial Services Ltd Annual Report is available Annual Report is available

ANZ SUPPORT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92BSection 92B(1)Section 92C

provisions shall apply in respect of an international transaction that is same as the international transaction to which the agreement applies. Further the Functions Assets and Risks (FAR) analysis should not differ materially. Since there is no change in the FAR analysis of the assessee and the nature of international