← All Phrases

“captive service provider”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C229 judgments

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

ITA 2533/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

software developed by\nthe company. This also indicates the high brand value this company\npossess. In assessee's case being a captive service provider, there it\ndoes not own any intangibles. In our opinion this company deserved\nto be excluded.\"\n8.6.\nIn view of the above, we direct the TPO/Assessing

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2047/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

competitive positioning by managing the business of its clients. The Ld. AR submitted that such a giant company cannot be compared with a captive service provider like assessee which is only rendering data processing services to its AE. 9.3.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that this company has a huge ... India Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA NO. 3593/Mum/2012 vide order dated 06.06.2019, wherein these comparables were excluded as functionally not similar to a captive services provider. It is also noted that based on decision, this Tribunal in the preceding assessment year excluded these comparables by observing as under: ITA No.2047/Mum/2014

MOVATE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2467/CHNY/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

Assessee primarily provides ITeS and IT services to Movate Group companies and third-party customers. For AE segment, the assessee functions as a captive service provider and hence :-3-: ITA. No:2467/Chny/2024 does not bear any risk and is remunerated at cost plus 16% mark-up for both IT & ITES

FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

identifying potential opportunities in India for the said clients. According to the assessee, it functions as a limited risk captive service provider, operating on an assured return model and is compensated for its services on an arm’s length basis without assuming any significant risk. In this regard, assessee assists

ACIT-4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BNP PARIBAS INDIA SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5688/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is registered under the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) Scheme and operates as a captive service provider for BNP Paribas Group. It filed its return of income on 30.11.2017, reporting total income at Rs.167,95,07,080/- 3 BNP Paribas India

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. AMAZON DEVELOPEMENT CENTRE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 2127/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao &For Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT-DR
Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), , BANGALORE vs. AMAZON DEVELOPEMENT CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 2036/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao &For Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT-DR
Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL

GE INDIA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 293/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate & Ms. ViyushtiFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Divya, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 254

leader with diversified operations, proprietary products, and assumes significant entrepreneurial risks. Consistent judicial view is that such giant companies cannot be compared with captive service providers. Therefore, its exclusion is fully justified. In this regard we find support and guidance from the decision of coordinate bench of this tribunal ... that these companies are involved in diversified activities including development of proprietary software products, platforms and solutions, and assume higher risks than a captive service provider. In the absence of segmental information isolating pure software development services, their margins cannot be reliably compared with the assessee. 24.7 We note that

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GE INDIA EXPORT PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 253/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate & Ms. ViyushtiFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Divya, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 254

leader with diversified operations, proprietary products, and assumes significant entrepreneurial risks. Consistent judicial view is that such giant companies cannot be compared with captive service providers. Therefore, its exclusion is fully justified. In this regard we find support and guidance from the decision of coordinate bench of this tribunal ... that these companies are involved in diversified activities including development of proprietary software products, platforms and solutions, and assume higher risks than a captive service provider. In the absence of segmental information isolating pure software development services, their margins cannot be reliably compared with the assessee. 24.7 We note that

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. ACUITY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE(INDIA) PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2334/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Mansa Ananthan, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 37Section 43B

factually incorrect. The assessee submitted that eClerx Service Ltd operate as a full- fledged risk bearing entrepreneur whereas the assessee company is captive service provider. The assessee also placed reliance on various case laws including Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruling in the case of Rampgreen Solutions ... lower authorities. Page 17 of 27 ITA Nos. 2153 & 2334/Bang/2024 59. At the outset, we note that the assessee is a captive service provider rendering routine IT enabled services to its associated enterprise on a cost-plus basis. The assessee has consistently characterized itself as a low-end ITES/BPO service

ACUITY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE1(1)(1), BENGALURU , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2153/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Mansa Ananthan, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 37Section 43B

factually incorrect. The assessee submitted that eClerx Service Ltd operate as a full- fledged risk bearing entrepreneur whereas the assessee company is captive service provider. The assessee also placed reliance on various case laws including Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruling in the case of Rampgreen Solutions ... lower authorities. Page 17 of 27 ITA Nos. 2153 & 2334/Bang/2024 59. At the outset, we note that the assessee is a captive service provider rendering routine IT enabled services to its associated enterprise on a cost-plus basis. The assessee has consistently characterized itself as a low-end ITES/BPO service

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. JSW ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed and cross appeals filed by the assesse stands dismissed

ITA 2365/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT

NTT DATA GLOBAL DELIVERY SERVICES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2062/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J – CIT

impugned company has substantial onsite revenue and having foreign currency expenditure which amounts to around 13.72% of the Revenue whereas assessee is captive service provider. They have also substantially high related party transaction. Accordingly, the assessee prayed to the learned DRP to exclude the company i.e. M/s Persistent Systems ... fundamentally different from that of the assessee. A company engaged in creation, ownership and exploitation of intellectual property cannot be compared with a captive service provider that does not develop or own any IP. 16.4 The ld. AR argued that the presence of significant intangibles, R&D activities, IP ownership

NTT DATA GLOBAL DELIVERY SERVICES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1720/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J – CIT

impugned company has substantial onsite revenue and having foreign currency expenditure which amounts to around 13.72% of the Revenue whereas assessee is captive service provider. They have also substantially high related party transaction. Accordingly, the assessee prayed to the learned DRP to exclude the company i.e. M/s Persistent Systems ... fundamentally different from that of the assessee. A company engaged in creation, ownership and exploitation of intellectual property cannot be compared with a captive service provider that does not develop or own any IP. 16.4 The ld. AR argued that the presence of significant intangibles, R&D activities, IP ownership

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

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

ITA 2032/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Saklani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28

find that both these comparables are different in size and have huge brand value and hence they are not comparable with the captive service provider like the assessee. The ld. TPO has been rightly directed to exclude these by the ld. CIT(A). 18. With respect to Mindtree

UBS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CREDIT SUISSE SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD),PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE - 1, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1407/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1407/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ubs Business Solutions (India) V The Principal Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Credit S. Commissioner Of Suisse Services (India) Pvt Income Tax, Ltd.), Pune-1. Cluster A, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, S.No.77, Ground To 5Th Floors In Wing 1, 3Rd To 5Th Floor In Wing 2, Kharadi Midc Knowledge Park, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabcu8718M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal - Ar Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 31.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144B

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

case of loss of revenue (a)Without prejudice to above, the Ld. PCIT erred in not appreciating that the appellant is a captive service provider and invoices to its group companies i.e. associated enterprises (AE) on cost plus basis. (b)On the facts and circumstances of the case

MERCEDES-BENZ RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-4, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 972/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Kamal Sawhney, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Diyva K.J., D.R
Section 250Section 92C

business of consulting Technology, engineering and outsourcing services, which is not comparable to the functions of the assessee, which is a captive service provider. The TPO also did not accept the submission of the assessee that the brand value and the expenditure incurred by Infosys are not comparable with that ... various cases, where it is held that the revenue of Infosys Ltd. from SWD is very high and cannot be compared to a captive service provider like the assessee. 11. We heard the parties and perused the materials on record. We notice that in the case of Infinon Technologies India

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8 1 (INCHARGE), HYDERABAD vs. VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, TAMIL NADU

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2632/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

assessee for the international transactions with Category A subsidiaries of the assessee (Category A subsidiaries are the subsidiaries who operate as captive service providers who undertake lesser functions and bear limited risks vis-à-vis the assessee) compensates the subsidiaries at a cost-plus arm’s length mark

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD vs. VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI TAMIL NADU

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2631/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

assessee for the international transactions with Category A subsidiaries of the assessee (Category A subsidiaries are the subsidiaries who operate as captive service providers who undertake lesser functions and bear limited risks vis-à-vis the assessee) compensates the subsidiaries at a cost-plus arm’s length mark

VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2262/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

assessee for the international transactions with Category A subsidiaries of the assessee (Category A subsidiaries are the subsidiaries who operate as captive service providers who undertake lesser functions and bear limited risks vis-à-vis the assessee) compensates the subsidiaries at a cost-plus arm’s length mark

Showing 1–20 of 229 · Page 1 of 12

...