“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

M/S Infineon Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 3355/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3355/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 9Th Floor, Prestige Income Tax, Thirulakshmi, Circle – 3(1)(1), No. 11, Mg Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 26/10/2018 By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “A. 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') Grossly Erred In Adjusting The Transfer Price By Inr 9,56,93,721/- With Respect To The International

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan

Section 92C

3355/Bang/2018 that the assessee in case of Salesforce.com India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) was also a captive service provider bearing minimal risk in rendering the software development services and MSS services to the associated enterprises. 14. Ground no. 14 – Assessee is seeking exclusion of a) Infosys Ltd. b) Larsen

Wns Global; Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

related services and it outsources a portion of such work to assessee . With respect to this international transaction, the Appellant operates as a captive service provider rendering services as may be requested for by WNS UK-T&CA BU for which assessee invoices it on a full time equivalent

DCIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2383/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

Nbc Fashion India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1756/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Nbc Fashion India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Splendor Forum, 4Th Floor, Units Tax, Tax Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai 401-412, Jasola District Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Delhi-100 025 Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Aadcn0495L Appellant Respondent

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

Appellant.” 3 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is in the business of support services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) being captive service provider engaged in the business of providing procurement, support services to facilitate procurement of portal / merchandise from the Indian subcontinent region by the TJX group

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

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

ITA 210/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92D

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

Capita India Pvt Limited (Capita India), Mumbai vs. Nafc Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 732/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14A

goodwill. It has also incurred huge selling and marketing expenses to the tune of Rs.156 crores, where as the assessee herein is a captive service provider. This company is also heavily investing in implementing “Robotics Process Automation. Accordingly, he submitted that this company cannot be considered as a comparable company ... very high brand value in the market and also bears all related risk and cannot be compared to the assessee which is a captive service provider. Further, since it commands a very high brand value it enjoys premium pricing. The aforesaid company is therefore directed to be excluded from

Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 173/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Nuance Transcription The Assistant Commissioner Services India Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) V. Bangalore. First Floor, Block B, Salarpuria Aura, Khata No.434/170 Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout Bangalore – 560 103. Pan : Aaacf3465F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Vishal Kalra, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 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 22.11.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites) To Focus Enterprises Limited, Usa, Which Is An Associate Enterprise (Ae) Of The Assessee. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Total Income Of Rs.23,99,94,900. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 2 It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017. M/S.Nuance Transcription Services India Private Limited. 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Dated 14.08.2013 Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Had Entered Into International Transactions With Its Ae. Accordingly, The Case Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Ae’S. The Tpo Vide Order Dated 28.01.2016, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Following Tp Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 92C

grounds are partly allowed as indicated above. Negative Working Capital Adjustment (Ground 9.5) 25. It was submitted that the assessee is a captive service provider, which is entirely funded by the AE and it does not have any borrowings. Therefore, it was stated that the assessee did not bear ... consider the same in the light of the jurisdictional rulings on negative working capital adjustment in the case of captive service providers and allow the relief to the assessee. Accordingly, ground 9.5 is allowed for statistical purposes. 28. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

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

ITA 2385/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

functionally not at IT(TP)A No.2385/Bang/2019 M/s. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore Page 30 of 92 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

M/S. Meritor C vs. India Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 249/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

under the circumstances, could not have been selected as comparable at all to the appellant company, since the appellant company is only a captive service provider, providing services only to its AE. v) not appreciating the fact that, the DRP has ignored the position of law laid down

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

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

ITA 2623/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2623/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Blue Coat Network (India) Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 1001 & 1002, The Deputy 10Th Floor, Rmz Campus Commissioner Of 8-B, Income Tax, Plot No. C-L, Sarjapur Circle – 1(1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Bangalore. Vs. Road, Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aahcs7844Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 22/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle -1 (1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 143(2)

Software (India) Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Nihilent Technologies Ltd., Infosys Ltd., Cybage software Pvt.Ltd. for having high turnover as compared to a captive service provider like assessee.” 16.4 The assessee in Zynga Game Network India (P.) Ltd. (supra) was a captive service provider to its AE for assessment year ... Software (India) Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Nihilent Technologies Ltd., Infosys Ltd., Cybage software Pvt.Ltd. for having high turnover as compared to a captive service provider like assessee. 17. Infobeans Technologies Ltd. 17.1 The assessee is seeking the exclusion of this company from the comparable list. According to the Ld.AR, Infobeans

M/S Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR

Section 92D

Hello Soft Pvt. Ltd. (2013) without appreciating the fact that Page 8 of 29 IT(TP)A Nos. 561 & 437/Bang/2015 assessee is captive service provider with no risk at all since the services are rendered to the AEs only. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR

Section 92D

M/S Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 181/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., No. 10 Brindavan, The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Yashoda Nagar Main Income Tax, Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Jakkur Plantation, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan: Aaacq0656P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahaveer C Jain, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 25/01/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer C Jain, CA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

rendered in foreign currency. Apart from that all major risks are being borne by the AE. Assessee is thus held to be a captive service provider who is remunerated on cost plus basis for the services rendered. Page 13 IT(TP)A No. 181/Bang/2022 10. Based on the above ... 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

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Technologies and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 728/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

rendered by Ingersoll Rand International (India) Pvt Ltd which has been considered by this Hon’ble Tribunal and that the assessee being a captive service provider bears limited risk and does not bear market risk or IPR risk as it is borne by the AE (page ... ld.AR that it would be incorrect to compare the Appellant with the companies engaged in full-fledged development activities and being a captive service provider, the assessee does not own any product or any intangible with respect to the services rendered. The ld.AR therefore prayed that the matter requires

M/S. Hp Computing and Printing Systems India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234B

relief consequential thereto. Total tax effect 2,833,389 2. The assessee is engaged in providing Information Technology enabled Services [ITeS] as a captive service provider to its Associated Enterprise [AE]. It filed return of income on 28.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,28,28,57,080. The case

M/S. Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 606/BANG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., No. 138, Export It(Tp)A No. Promotion Industrial 2008-09 606/Bang/2021 Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P The Joint M/S. Sap Labs India Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, (Successor To M/S. Special Range – 6, Success Factors Bangalore. Business Solutions It(Tp)A No. India Pvt. Ltd.), 2015-16 2510/Bang/2019 No. 138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA

Section 3(1)(b)

book pages 302-307, we are of the opinion that, this comparable cannot be compared with that of the assessee which is a captive service provider, as observed by this Tribunal vide order dated 06/04/2018. 3.12 It is also recorded by this Tribunal that, the assessee before us is engaged ... 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. Success Factors Business Solutions India Private Limited (Now Merged With Sap Labs India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 2510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA

Section 3(1)(b)

Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1777/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 10ASection 250

Tribunal, Infosys BPO has been excluded as a comparable for benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to ITeS, wherein the taxpayer is a captive service provider, on the basis that Infosys BPO is in knowledge process outsourcing, having significant intangibles, has large scale of operation and is a giant company with

Dy.CIT-8(3), Mumbai vs. Sitel India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1426/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 10ASection 250

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

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

ITA 206/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 206/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Epson India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 12Th Floor, The Milenia, Commissioner Of Tower A, Income Tax, No. 1,Murphy Road, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ulsoor, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 008. Pan: Aaace7858F Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Orders Passed By Learned Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income- Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred As "Ao" For Brevity), Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tp) — 1(2)(1), Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred As "Tpo" For Brevity) & The Honourable Drp-1

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha

support service activities undertaken by Epson India it does not bear any significant risk. Hence it can be characterized as a captive service provider in respect of provision of business support services. Page 19 of 30 IT(TP)A No. 206/Bang/2021 16. Based on the above comparability of the comparables ... sought for inclusion / exclusion which are considered as under: Assessee has been characterised to be a limited risk distributor and the captive service provider in respect of Business support service segment. Ground No. 11(i)- Assessee is seeking inclusion of following two comparables: 18. ICRA Management Consulting Services