“captive service provider”

M/S. Ntt Data Global Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 5, Bangalore

documentation furnished by the Assessee, in relation to SWD Segment the Assessee-company was captive service provider remunerated by its AE on a cost-plus basis. The Assessee- company neither owned any intellectual property (IP) nor undertook any research and development (R&D) and bore limited operational risks. Accordingly ... software developed by the company. This also indicates the high brand value this company possess. In assessee's case being a captive service provider, there it does not own any intangibles. In our opinion this company deserved to be excluded." 8.6. In view of the above, we direct the TPO/Assessing

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Amazon Developement Centre(India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

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

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

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

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

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

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