“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

Ntt Data Information Processing Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The 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

ITA 297/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)

building expenses. Infosys Brand is a key intangible asset of the company and thus, cannot be compared to the Assessee which is a captive service provider. IT(TP)A No.297/Bang/2021 M/s. NTT Data Information Processing Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 7 of 35 Market leader 3.7 The company ... company has the ability to negotiate its prices with the clients which is not the case with the Assessee as it is a captive service provider. This is evident as it is stated in Annual Report that "A strong brand name coupled with long-standing relationships help

Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 288/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 288/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 143/1, Amani Bellandur Khane Village, The Joint Prestige Excelsior, Commissioner Of Prestige Tech Park, Income-Tax Marathalli – Sarjapur Outer (Osd), Ring Road, Circle 6 (1)(1), Vs. Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaics9204M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi On 30.04.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA

Section 92C(3)Section 92D

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. 24/7 Customer Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 228/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 228/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. 24/7 Customer Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Embassy Golflinks Business Commissioner Of Park, Income Tax, Challaghatta Village, Circle – 2 (1)(1), Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore. Vs. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaacz1014A Appellant Respondent : Shri Jeepan Nagpal & Mrs. Assessee By Pallavi Sharma, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2005- 06 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Grounds Of Appeal & Question Of Law: A) The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Fact Seeking Exact Comparability Under Tnnm?

For Respondent: Shri Jeepan Nagpal & Mrs

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

This comparable is excluded by Wipro BPO Solutions Ld.CIT(A) as it carries huge 4. Ltd. brand value which is not akin to captive service provider like Page 7 of 8 IT(TP)A No. 228/Bang/2020 assessee. This comparable is outsourcing major portion of its as observed by Coordinate Bench

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Altisource Business Solutions India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 164/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 162/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pritech Park, 3Rd & 5Th Floors Of Wing A & The Deputy 4Th Floor Of Wing B, Commissioner Of Block No. 12, Pritech Park, Income Tax, Survey No. 51-64/4, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Vs. Sarjapur Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaaco9467A Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 164/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 (By Revenue) : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Susan Dolores George Revenue By Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 30-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against Order Dated 31.08.2017 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 92C(3)(a)

carrying out its operations with respect to the software development services and ITeS. Accordingly, the Appellant was characterised as a low risk captive service provider rendering software services and ITeS as per the requirements of the AEs. The detailed FAR analysis is provided in Section 4, Page

Vmware Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2127/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Vmware Software India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Kalyani Magnum Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Block-I, 3Rd Floor 165/2 Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bannerghatta Road Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaccv4573E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit -Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2022 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 24.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Issues Raised In The Appeal Are As Follows:- (I) Validity Of The Impugned Final Assessment Order; (Ii) Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment Of Rs.26,85,43,457 Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Contrct Software Development & Information Technology Enabled Services To The Assessee’S Associated Enterprises (Aes); (Iii) Addition Of Rs.7,62,39,388 Being The Alleged Suppressed Income Of The Assessee; & 2 It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017. M/S.Vmware Software India Private Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT -DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

engaged in the business of provision of contract Software Development (SWD) services and Information Technology Enabled (ITE) services to its AEs as a captive service provider. The assessee is a subsidiary of VMware International Limited, Ireland, which in turn is an affiliate of VMWare Inc. US. During the previous year

M/S. 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 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2428/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Persistent owns software products which have been developed in house - Company engaged in R&D activity cannot be considered comparable to captive service providers  Significant outsourcing activity  Information u/s 133(6) incomplete - Copy of the response provided to Assessee is not complete. 16.1 Ld. D.R. submitted that on perusal ... respect of the same.  Presence of significant brand values, Intangibles & scale respectively  Company engaged in R&D activity cannot be considered comparable to captive service providers  Significant onsite activity (viz. 50.4% of revenue is generated from onsite model) 20.2 Ld. D.R. relied on the order

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 260/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.260/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Enstage Software Private Limited, Dcit (Exemptions), Vs. 16/1, Wings, 2Nd Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Cambridge Road, Halsuru, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aaace 9963 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C

pricing. Based on the analysis of the functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed, it is appropriate to characterize the taxpayer as a captive service provider which assumes minimal risks associated with the business of providing software development services.” 5. The assessee has entered into the following international transaction with

M/S Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3403/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the provision of SWD services and engineering services to Applied Inc., its AE, as a captive service provider. In terms of the provisions of Sec.92A of the Act, the Assessee and its wholly owned holding company were Associated Enterprises ("AEs"). 3. In terms ... relevant material on record. Undisputedly, the assessee is charging a mark up on the software development services provided to the AE being captive service provider. Therefore the assessee is not acting as an agent or distributor of the AE but is a provider of services

Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft Private Limtied, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 835/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Company" or "the Appellant") [Formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Global Soft Pvt. Ltd.]. During the year under consideration, the assessee functioned as a captive service provider for the Hewlett-Packard ("HP") Group entities ("Associated Enterprises" or the "AEs") and rendered the following services:  Software development and software maintenance services

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 810/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Galax E Solutions India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 389/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.389/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Galax E Solutions India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Unit No.4, 8Th Floor, Innovator Block, Itpl, Circle -3(1)(1), Bangalore, Whitefield Road, Bangalore 560 066. Pan : Aabcg 9007 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. C. J. Brito, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit, Dr. Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.5.2021 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The First Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Correctness Of Determination Of Arm’S Length Price In Respect Of An International Transaction U/S.92 Of The Act. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Wholly Owned Subsidiary Company In Usa. In Terms Of The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri. C. J. Brito, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

Indicator (PLI) for the purpose of comparison of the Assessee’s profit margin with that of the comparable companies. The Assessee is a captive service provider and does not bear any cost of software development and support services. The entire IT(TP)A No.389/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 24 cost

M/S. Intgreon Managed Solutions (India)P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Addl/Jt/Cy /CIT/Asstt./ITO-National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1023/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2015-16

Section 147Section 234B

Rs.1,13,74,847/- to the total income of the assessee. 6. Before Ld DRP, the assessee submitted that it is a captive service provider to its associated enterprises and it is remunerated at cost plus mark-up of 15% basis. It was submitted that the assessee had raised bills

M/S Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2027/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, AR & Shri PratikFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

No.227/Bang/2010 has held ITA Nos.2024 & 2027 /Bang/2017 Page 9 of 32 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 2024/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, AR & Shri PratikFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

M/S. Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 5, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2411/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2411/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ocwen Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pritech Park, Block 12, The Joint Commissioner Unit 2, 5B & 6A Floors, Of Income-Tax, Bellandur Village, Special Range-5, Sarjapur Marathahalli Bangalore. Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaaco3764E Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Assessee By Ms. Rashmi, Advocates : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24/09/2019 Passed By The Ld.Jcit, Special Range-5, Bangalore Under Section 143 (3) R.W.S 144C (13) Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan &

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 92C

Ocwen India: Based on the analysis of functions performed, risks borne and assets used, it is appropriate to characterize Ocwen India as a captive service provider that assumes lower than the normal Page 5 of 24 IT(TP)A No. 2411/Bang/2019 risks associated with the business of providing information technology ... market, or the inability to develop markets, or position products to service targeted customers. Ocwen India renders services in the capacity of a captive service provider exclusively to OMS. As a result, it is not affected by factors such as non- availability of markets for its services, fluctuation in demand

Jp Morgan Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 10 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3512/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 3512/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2014-15) J.P.Morgan Services India Private Limited, Level Nos. 9 To 11, Prism Towers, Mindspace, Link Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 400 104. Pan: Aabcd-0503-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(1), Room No.509, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Porus Kaka Sr. Advocate With Shri & Divesh Chawla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Satya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 28/02/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment & Disallowance Made U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]. The Relevant Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka Sr. Advocate with Shri and Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty

Section 14ASection 92C(3)

emanating from records are: The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of JP Morgan Services Asia Holdings Ltd. – Mauritius. The assessee is a captive service provider engaged in rendering Back Office Support Services to JP Morgan Group/Associated Enterprises (AEs). During the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal

Novell Software Development (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 319/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

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

fulfledged Software Development Company. One has to look into transaction in regards to services rendered and FAR, which catagorises it to be a captive service provider, working on business model of cost plus margin. 9.6 It is observed that comparables sought to be excluded are 100 % Software Development Companies, having ... perused the submission advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. A.5 We note that in similar circumstance of a captive service provider, this Tribunal in case of Aspect Technology Center (I.) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO(supra) observed and held as under: 20. However

ITO Ward - 5(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 280/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

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

Ansr Global Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 225/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.225/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Ansr Global Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Ground Floor, Block L1, Circle – 1(1)(1), Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bengaluru. Sez, Outer Ring Road, Nagwara, Bengaluru-560 045. Pan : Aaecn 7296 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

Indicator (PLI) for the purpose of comparison of the Assessee’s profit margin with that of the comparable companies. The Assessee is a captive service provider and does IT(TP)A No.225/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 23 not bear any cost of software development and support services. The entire cost

Xerox Business Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 361/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 144C(6)Section 92C

final assessment order. 6. The learned AO/DRP/TPO has erred, in law and on facts by not appreciating that the Appellant is a captive service provider, carrying out limited functions and assuming limited risks and therefore needs to be compared with appropriate comparable set. 7. The learned AO/DRP/TPO have erred ... making negative working capital adjustment In relation to the services provided by the Appellant without appreciating the fact that the Appellant Is a captive service provider and does not bear any working capital risk.” 3. The assessee filed petition for admission of additional grounds stating that inadvertently these additional grounds