“captive service provider”

M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

carrying out medical IT(TP)A Nos.844 & 932/Bang/2017 Page 28 of 53 transcription, medical billing and coding whereas the Assessee was a captive service provider. The Tribunal followed its own ruling in the same assessee’s case in AY 2011-12 in ITA No.99/Del/2016 reported in (2017) 87 taxmann.com ... that the adjustment is made without appreciating that although the Assessee has some receivables appearing in its books, since the Assessee is a captive service provider, it does not carry any working capital risk since it is always funded by its AEs. Working capital adjustment is made for the time

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

carrying out medical IT(TP)A Nos.844 & 932/Bang/2017 Page 28 of 53 transcription, medical billing and coding whereas the Assessee was a captive service provider. The Tribunal followed its own ruling in the same assessee’s case in AY 2011-12 in ITA No.99/Del/2016 reported in (2017) 87 taxmann.com ... that the adjustment is made without appreciating that although the Assessee has some receivables appearing in its books, since the Assessee is a captive service provider, it does not carry any working capital risk since it is always funded by its AEs. Working capital adjustment is made for the time

Fireeye Cybersecurity Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 292/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mandiant Cyber Security Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Fireeye The Deputy Cybersecurity Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 5, Front Wing Circle – 3(1)(1), Salarpuria Infinity, Vs. Bengaluru. 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan: Aaccf1341A Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Passed By National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 30/04/2021 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

market prices. Since FireEye US negotiate the price with their customers, they bear entire price risk. FireEye India in its role as a captive service provider does neither directly or indirectly bear any pricing risk as it is not directly engaged with FireEye US customers in commercial transactions ... functional and risk analysis relating to IT services, ITeS and MSS rendered by FireEye India to its AEs, it can be characterized as captive service provider performing routine functions and bearing limited risk with respect to its international transactions. On the other hand, AEs performs critical functions of product conceptualization

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

Ld.AR submitted that in case of the present assessee, the turnover for year under consideration is only 13 crores and it is a captive service provider rendering services only to its AE. The Ld.AR submitted that the business profile of the activities carried out by the assessee ... high turnover more that 200 crores. This Tribunal observed that, the said company was having multiple segments and cannot be compared with a captive service provider. The relevant observation of this Tribunal in the case of Barracuda Networks India (P.) Ltd. vs,DCIT (supra), are as follows

Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

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

analysis. He agreed with the Assessee that TNMM was to be applied as the MAM. The TPO has characterized the Assessee as a captive service provider which assumes minimal risk associated with the business of providing software development services. The TPO thereafter applied certain filters and selected 15 comparable companies ... There is nothing on record brought by the Ld.CIT.DR in order to establish that these are comparable with assessee that is a captive service provider which functions at the strict supervision and instructions by the AE’s. Further we note that turnover criteria has to be applied with an upper

M/.S Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed in respect of the issues argued and considered hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner Of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aaccn1140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29/10/2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Goldman Sachs Services (P.) Ltd. vs. JCIT reported in [2020] 117 taxmann.com 535 (Bangalore-Trib.) wherein the assessee therein was also a captive service provider. It is submitted that these comparables have been held to be not comparable in case of LG Soft India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra ... Stream Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) would apply to the present assessee as assessee in the present fact is also a captive service provider as observed by this Tribunal in case of Metric Stream Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra). The Ld.AR relied on the observations

Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-5, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.342/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Ocwen Financial Solutions The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax V. Pritech Park, Survey No.51 To Special Range – 5 64/4, Block No.12, Unit 2, 5B & Bangalore. 6A Floors, Bellandur Village, Sarjapur Marathahalli Ring Road Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaaco3764E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, Advocates Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Providing It Enabled Services To Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. Usvi. The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Ocwen Asia Holdings Limited, Mauritius. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 29.11.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.93,31,44,800. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

suggests that the company is engaged in consultancy and management services unlike the Appellant which is involved only in providing ITES as a captive service provider entity. 13.2 Further, Infosys BPO Limited has been excluded in the case of Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India (P.) Ltd. [2022] 137 taxmann.com ... Assessee, who operates as a risk-free entity. The DRP observed that as far as the limited risk in the case of captive service providers is concerned, if this argument is accepted then it cannot be compared to any company as most of the companies will be independent companies. Rather

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchase software. It also includes expertise in various technologies, implementation, monitoring and support of IT infrastructures and software solutions. The assessee is a captive service provider providing software services only to its AE’s. 2.3 The assessee’s margin as adopted by the TPO is as under (page

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited (Earlier Known As Ge Medical Systems India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

purchase software. It also includes expertise in various technologies, implementation, monitoring and support of IT infrastructures and software solutions. The assessee is a captive service provider providing software services only to its AE’s. 2.3 The assessee’s margin as adopted by the TPO is as under (page

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, 2016-17 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

development, content management systems, enterprise mobility, Big Data analytics. Ld.AR thus submitted that this company is functionally not at all similar with a captive service provider like assessee that this providing Ltd services to its associated enterprises. 14.3.1.0n the contrary Ld. CIT DR, referring observations of DRP in para ... considered to be functioning in 100% risk mitigated environment and is a full-fledged enterprise. Such a comparable cannot be compared with a captive service provider like assessee. Accordingly we direct this comparable to be excluded from finalist.” 9. Following the above said decisions rendered by co-ordinate benches

Hp Pps Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 278/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Hp Pps Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 24, Salarpuria Commissioner Of Arena, Income Tax, Hosur Main Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Adugodi, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aadch5825N Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Binod Kumar Singh, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 29/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Appellant Submits That: I. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao'), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Learned Tpo') & The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'Ble Drp')

undertaken by HP PPS Services. Market risk HP PPS Services does not bear the market risk directly because it only acts as a captive service provider, providing software development services to its AEs. Since the AEs of HP PPS Services directly liaise with the customers, such risk is borne ... develop new technology. Conclusion (both segments) Based on the functional and risk analysis, it can be concluded that HP PPS Services is a captive service provider bearing substantially lower risks as against the AEs. 2.13 Ground No.12: It is submitted that the turnover of the assesseet is 127 crores

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

suggests that the company is engaged in consultancy and management services unlike the Appellant which is involved only in providing ITES as a captive service provider entity. 13.2 Further, Infosys BPO Limited has been excluded in the case of Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India (P.) Ltd. [2022] 137 taxmann.com ... Assessee, who operates as a risk-free entity. The DRP observed that as far as the limited risk in the case of captive service providers is concerned, if this argument is accepted then it cannot be compared to any company as most of the companies will be independent companies. Rather

Etisalat Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

exclusion of the following 5 comparables. Cybage Software Pvt.Ltd. 16. The ld. AR submitted that Cybage Software P. Ltd. is not a captive service provider like the assessee and hence not functionally comparable to the assessee. The risk profile is not comparable and this company has geographical presence in Australia

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.191/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Limited, Delhi. 59/2, 1St Floor, Gurudas Heritage, Block-B, 100 Feet Ring Road, Banashankari 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 070. Pan: Aafct 3474 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco Electronics Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore, which is ultimately held by TE Connectivity Ltd., Switzerland. The assessee is a captive service provider and is engaged, inter-alia, in the business of providing shared services in the areas of Information Technology, Finance back-office, Human Resource, customer

Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

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

case of 24/7 Customer.Com Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.227/Bang/2010 has held that a company owning intangibles cannot be compared to a low risk captive service provider who does not own any intangible and hence does not have an additional advantage in the market. It is submitted that this decision ... Infosys Technologies Ltd. being a giant company and market leader assuming all risks leading to higher profits cannot be considered as comparable to captive service providers assuming limited risk ; (iii) the company has generated several inventions and filed for many patents in India and USA ; (iv) the company has substantial

M/S Conduent Business Services India LLP, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground No.1 to 3 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. He has also filed written synopsis on 12/05/2022, which is as under:- “Conduent India operates as a captive service provider rendering Software Support Services & BPO Support services primarily to its Associated Enterprise (AEs'). The Appellant had filed an application under the provisions of Article

Arm Embedded Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

book. The services rendered by this company are different from the routine low end software development services rendered by the assessee as a captive service provider to its AE. The Ld.AR further submitted that, segmental details of such diverse activities carried on by this company are not available. He thus ... Logic India Ltd.,(supra) considered these comparables for assessment year 2016-17 and has held them to be functionally not similar with a captive service provider like that of the assessee before us. Further The assessee in Global Logic India Ltd.,(supra) is also as captive service provider as observed

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

find that Just Dial Ltd. is a search engine for multifarious activities using different platforms, dealing with different products whereas assessee is a captive service provider providing marketing services only to its AE. Hence we do not find any functional similarity of this company with that of assessee. Accordingly

Citrix R & D India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 220/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Citrix R&D India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Prestige Dynasty, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Income Tax, 33/2, Ulsoor Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn3639C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Mathivanan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Transfer Pricing - 2. That The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore ("Assessing Officer" Or "Learned Ao") & The Dispute Resolution Panel - 1 ("Learned Panel" Or "Learned Drp")

book. The services rendered by this company are different from the routine low end software development services rendered by the assessee as a captive service provider to its AE. The Ld.AR further submitted that, segmental details of such diverse activities carried on by this company are not available. He thus ... Logic India Ltd.,(supra) considered these comparables for assessment year 2016-17 and has held them to be functionally not similar with a captive service provider like that of the Page 26 of 53 IT(TP)A No. 220/Bang/2021 assessee before us. Further The assessee in Global Logic India