Search: transfer pricing

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR

Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

price, the First Party shall not unreasonably withhold its consent for selling the aforesaid area. The First Party shall authorise the Second Party to collect and recover from the purchasers this portion of OWNERS' CONSTRUCTED AREA' all amounts and the amount so collected shall be appropriated against the refund of the Security Deposit amount to be made by the First

MAPEI CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

section 143(3A) and (3B) of the act, for the assessment year 2016- 17 on following grounds of appeal: “1. JURISDICTION 1.1. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in referring the case to the learned Transfer Pricing Page 2 of 22 IT(TP)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Officer (TPO) in violation of Instruction

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 804/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of reimbursement of expenses. It is a fact that during the year under consideration, the TPO had held in the original assessment proceedings that the reimbursement of expenses is related to the business activities of the assessee and IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore Page

M/S.NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 739/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of reimbursement of expenses. It is a fact that during the year under consideration, the TPO had held in the original assessment proceedings that the reimbursement of expenses is related to the business activities of the assessee and IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore Page

NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 330/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of reimbursement of expenses. It is a fact that during the year under consideration, the TPO had held in the original assessment proceedings that the reimbursement of expenses is related to the business activities of the assessee and IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore Page

M/S NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 3321/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of reimbursement of expenses. It is a fact that during the year under consideration, the TPO had held in the original assessment proceedings that the reimbursement of expenses is related to the business activities of the assessee and IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore Page

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 3071/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)

Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.179.09 crores determined by the TPO. Besides the above, the AO also disallowed expenses relating to Gift to Doctors; expenditure incurred on swimming pool, depreciation/addl. Depreciation claimed on certain assets and donation to CM relief fund. 3.3 The assessee filed its objections before Ld DRP. The Ld Dispute Resolution Panel granted relief in respect of donation

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of AMP expenses. (ii) Assessee has been bearing substantial portion of the fees paid to ICC for acquiring sponsorship rights even though benefit of the same is derived by the other entities of the world. 88. Aggrieved by the addition proposed by the AO, the assessee had filed objections before the DRP. The DRP vide

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of AMP expenses. (ii) Assessee has been bearing substantial portion of the fees paid to ICC for acquiring sponsorship rights even though benefit of the same is derived by the other entities of the world. 88. Aggrieved by the addition proposed by the AO, the assessee had filed objections before the DRP. The DRP vide

HP INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 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 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 489/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate and Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

transfer pricing provision and not while allowability of business expense u/s 37(1). It is well known fact that companies use sports event as a platform to advertise their range of products as it has a very high viewership. Any such incurring of expenditure is ostensibly for 34 IT(TP)A No.489/Bang/2017 . promotion of business only and hence, no disallowance

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2532/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai for Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

transfer pricing provision and not while allowability of business expense u/s 37(1). It is well known fact that companies use sports event as a platform to advertise their range of products as it has a very high viewership. Any such incurring of expenditure is ostensibly for promotion of business only and hence, no disallowance is called for. Accordingly, Grounds

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 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 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

transfer pricing provision and not while allowability of business expense u/s 37(1). It is well known fact that companies use sports event as a platform to advertise their range of products as it has a very high viewership. Any such incurring of expenditure is ostensibly for promotion of business only and hence, no disallowance is called for. Accordingly, Grounds

M/S INFLOW TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 3339/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

section 92 of the Act can be applied only in respect of international transactions i.e., transactions with AE. 56. In view of the above transfer pricing provisions and various judicial precedents, we hold that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the AE related transactions of the assessee.” 5 ITA Nos.3338-3339/Bang/2018. M/s.Inflow Technologies Pvt.Ltd. 4.2.1 In view

M/S INFLOW TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 3338/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

section 92 of the Act can be applied only in respect of international transactions i.e., transactions with AE. 56. In view of the above transfer pricing provisions and various judicial precedents, we hold that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the AE related transactions of the assessee.” 5 ITA Nos.3338-3339/Bang/2018. M/s.Inflow Technologies Pvt.Ltd. 4.2.1 In view

SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 404/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 92BSection 92C

Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of software development 1,67,17,140 services Disallowance under section 14A 69,64,735 Total 6,26,87,179 2.6 It is submitted that the proposed disallowance of deduction under section 10AA was dropped and the deduction as claimed by the assessee under section 10AA was granted. 2.7 Aggrieved by the final assessment order

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CISCO VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 476/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.476/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R

Section 143(3)

155,172,089 22.12% Solutions Ltd. 10 Persistent Systems Ltd. 6,101,270,000 4,971,860,000 22.84% 11 R.S. Software (India) Ltd. 1,882,638,471 1,617,804,170 16.37% 12 Sasken Communication 3,941,962,000 3,175,616,000 24.13% Technologies Ltd. 13 Tata Elxsi

CISCO VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 597/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.476/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R

Section 143(3)

155,172,089 22.12% Solutions Ltd. 10 Persistent Systems Ltd. 6,101,270,000 4,971,860,000 22.84% 11 R.S. Software (India) Ltd. 1,882,638,471 1,617,804,170 16.37% 12 Sasken Communication 3,941,962,000 3,175,616,000 24.13% Technologies Ltd. 13 Tata Elxsi

M/S. SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal by the assessee and that by the Revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2057/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

155,172,089 22.12% 189,490,457 Solutions Ltd. 10 Persistent Systems Ltd. 6,101,270,000 4,971,860,000 22.84% Ii R S Software (India) 1,882,638,471 1,617,804,170 16.37% Ltd. Sasken 3,941,962,000 3,175,616,000 24.13% 12 Communication Technologies Ltd 13 Tata Elxsi

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal by the assessee and that by the Revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2221/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

155,172,089 22.12% 189,490,457 Solutions Ltd. 10 Persistent Systems Ltd. 6,101,270,000 4,971,860,000 22.84% Ii R S Software (India) 1,882,638,471 1,617,804,170 16.37% Ltd. Sasken 3,941,962,000 3,175,616,000 24.13% 12 Communication Technologies Ltd 13 Tata Elxsi