“captive service provider”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C229 judgments

The decision most relied on for captive service provider is CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd. (36 Taxmann.com 289), cited in 171 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on captive service provider

CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd.

36 Taxmann.com 289 · 2013 · High Court

171

citing judgments

The Delhi High Court holds that Infosys Ltd. is not comparable to a captive software development service provider for transfer pricing analysis, given its huge turnover, high profit margins, ownership of intangible intellectual property rights, branded products, and differing risk profile.

Trilogy E-Business Software India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

29 Taxmann.com 310 · 2013 · ITAT

citing judgments

For Transfer Pricing, this case clarifies that foreign exchange gains can be considered operating revenue for ITES providers, acknowledges the impact of offshore versus onsite development pricing on margins even when using TNMM, and affirms the use of a turnover filter for selecting comparable companies.

68 (Hyd.) Genisys Integrating System (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

20 Taxmann.com 715 · 2012 · Reported

citing judgments

When determining comparable companies for transfer pricing, there should be an upper limit for turnover, as size impacts business operations. Companies with significantly higher turnover than the assessee should generally be excluded.

Agnity India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

58 Taxmann.com 167 · 2015 · Reported

citing judgments

A company with significant brand value, intangible assets, and a business model providing end-to-end solutions leveraging cutting-edge technology cannot be considered comparable to an ordinary captive service provider in transfer pricing analysis.

Avnet India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (

65 Taxmann.com 187 · 2016 · Reported

citing judgments

Interest on delayed realization of sale proceeds from associated enterprises is not a separate international transaction. The realization of sale proceeds, whether early or late, is incidental to the primary transaction of sale.

DCIT v. Rehau Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

85 Taxmann.com 23 · 2017 · Reported

citing judgments

The case is cited for principles related to transfer pricing, likely concerning the benchmarking analysis of related party transactions, as indicated by the accompanying topics and keywords.

Finastra Software Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

93 Taxmann.com 460 · 2018 · ITAT

citing judgments

A company should be excluded from the list of comparable companies in transfer pricing analysis if it is functionally different, lacks segmental details, has different revenue recognition, or has undergone inorganic growth and owns significant intangible assets.

Global Logic India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

117 Taxmann.com 39 · 2020 · Reported

citing judgments

A company undergoing restructuring activity during the relevant financial year may be rejected as a comparable in transfer pricing analysis, as such events can impact its profitability.

Judgments citing captive service provider

Nvidia Graphics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

ITA 1111/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

development of graphics, media communication process and related services. It also provides marketing support services to its AEs. Assessee company is a captive service provider to its AE. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the return of income was filed on Page 3 of 17 14.11.2014 declaring total income

Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 625/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR

Section 28Section 40Section 92C

there is no perquisite arising to the Assessee from the AEs providing the equipments. (iii) It is undisputed that the Assessee is a captive service provider and the only customers of the Assessee are its AEs (please see pages 2-3 of the assessment order). That being the case, there ... deriving income from export of such software. 13. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The Assessee is a captive services provider undertaking software development services exclusively for its AEs. The software development is carried out by the Assessee based on the specific requirements

Us Technology International P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 562/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Us Technology International Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) 621, Nila, Technopark Campus 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Kariyavattom, Trivandrum 695581 Kowdiar [Pan: Aaacu5628B] Thiruvananthapuram 695003 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 144C(3)Section 92C(3)

relevant extract is as given below – *************************- 41. From the functions performed as per the TP study, we notice that the assessee is a captive service provider providing SWD services to its AE which is similar to the profile of ARM Embedded Technologies. Hence in our view the exclusions

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

erred in not allowing a risk adjustment to the Appellant on account of the fact that the Appellant is a captive service provider for its associated enterprises and is remunerated on a cost-plus basis irrespective of the outcome of the services provided and hence undertakes no market risk, service ... these Assessee/s were performing different high-end functions in the software industry and could not be compared with the Appellant being a captive service provider. The difference being that in the case relied upon by the Revenue Department, the tested parties were engaged in provision of software development services

Western Digital Technologies Inc., United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 343/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal

Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

financial year relevant to AY 2016-17, assessee and SanDisk India were not even associated enterprises. He submitted that SanDisk India was captive service provider engaged in rendering software development services and information technology enabled services and marketing support services only to its group Page

Fare Portal India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 497/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu S. SinhaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

ticketing services using 7 Fare Portal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT information technology. 9. Facts in brief are that, the assessee is a captive service provider to Fare Portal USA and rendered Information Technology enabled web- based travel and ticketing services during the year. For provision of this service ... DCIT 21. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the company has incurred marketing and advertisement expenses, while the assessee is a captive service provider which does not incur such expenses. The ld. AR also argued that the TPO has failed to follow a consistent approach for selection of comparables

Corteva Agriscience Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the Ground No

ITA 253/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bansal, CA and Shri Rohit Mittal, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(4)Section 92C

modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that, the assessee is a captive services provider engaged in providing administrative support services to DuPont Group Companies ('Associated Enterprises' or the 'AEs), and is remunerated on a cost plus mark ... have heard the submissions of the parties in this regard. The materials on record clearly prove the fact that the assessee is a captive service provider. It has transactions only with its AE. It is also a fact that all the risks lies with the AE. Different benches

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 309/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.309/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Oakton Global Technology Vs. Income Tax Officer Services Centre (India) (P) Ltd, Ward 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaaco8824H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144(5)

Infotech is engaged in development at software products as evident from the disclosures in the Annual Reports, whereas the appellant is a captive service provider to its AEs in respect of provision of software development services. He further submitted that L&T Infotech is a giant software company

Clinasia Labs Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 202/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri Nemichand Sirvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

companies based on upper turnover filter. Thus, the Assessee submits to apply the upper turnover filter for selecting the comparable companies for a captive service provider like the Assessee. Out of 12 Companies asked for exclusion the following 9 Companies are having Turnover > 200 Crores and the same

Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 475/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumarmckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 16 (1), 3Rd Floor, Block Iii, Delhi. Vatika Business Park, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaccm2356G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 Date Of Order : 04.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 21.01.2022 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Drp For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

stand. Therefore, submissions are limited to these grounds. 1. Proportionate adjustment for third-party transactions [Ground No.6] Facts 1.1 The Appellant, primarily a captive service provider to its Associated Enterprises (' AEs'), also provided certain services to third- party clients. The revenue earned by the Appellant was a minuscule portion

Isoft Health Management India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 976/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.976/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Isoft Health Management India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Capital . Income Tax, Towers, No. 180, Kodambakkam High Corporate Circle 2(2), Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aalcs8600A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaragahavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.02.2015 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaragahavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

India Pvt. Ltd., [2020] 113 taxmann.com 77 (Delhi)], it was held that where assessee was rendering ITES services to its AE as a captive service provider, a company having huge turnover and brand value assuming all risks leading to higher profits, could not be accepted as comparable. The Court noted

Joint Commissioner of Income -Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore vs. M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India-Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 978/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

sale of software project licenses, software maintenance as the profile of the assessee in the TP study captures itself to be a captive service provider and all the research and development carried out by the assessee are owned by the AE. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had purchased software which

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore vs. M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India-Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 958/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

M/S Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 484/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedappeal No. Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax, Circle - 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1166/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1092/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore vs. M/S. Samsung R &D Institute India- Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1046/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore vs. M/S. Samsung R & D Institute India -Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore

ITA 1045/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedappeal No. Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

Tech Mahindra Buisness Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 521/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

nature of providing data process and back office support services to its AEs. Thus the said company is also captive service provider. In the light of similar facts, we follow the decision of the Coordinate bench and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude Informed Technologies India Ltd. from the list

DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra Business Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1126/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C