Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Private ... vs Dcit, Bangalore on 9 December, 2016

M/S Unisys India Private Limited, ... vs Dcit, Bangalore on 28 September, 2017

8. We find that CIT(A) has mainly followed the tribunal order rendered in the case of Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) and observed in para no. 34 of his order that it was held by the tribunal in that case that insisting on low employee cost is not a very credible or a rational selection criteria and since, employees cost is low or similar throughout India, this is not acceptable that it would make a major difference. As per the order of TPO, wages / cost ratio of assessee company is 42% and the TPO has rejected only those comparables where this ratio falls outside the range of 25% to 65%. Hence it is seen that the TPO has not adopted a static percentage of employees cost ratio but it has adopted a wide range ranging from 25% to 65%. Now in the light of these facts, we examine the applicability of various judgments followed by ld. CIT(A) and relied upon by the ld. AR of assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Citrix R & D India Pvt Ltd , Bangalore vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 6 April, 2018

Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. We would like to mention that in support of assessee's request for exclusion of this comparable, reliance was placed on another judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of PCIT Vs. M/s. Oracle (OFSS) BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. in ITA 124/2018 but this judgment is for Assessment Year 2007-08 and therefore not relevant.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S Marvell India Pvt Ltd , Bangalore vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 6 April, 2018

The bench observed that even if it is found that a comparable company is functionally comparable then also turnover filter has to be applied as requested by the assessee and in that situation, this judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court has to be considered and those aspects as noted above are to be examined and decided and therefore, this will be proper if entire TP matter in respect of list of comparables is restored back to the file of AO/TPO for fresh decision. In reply, both sides agreed to this proposition put forward by the bench. Hence we set aside the order of AO/TPO/DRP on this aspect i.e. the final list of comparables and the matter is restored back to the file of AO/TPO for fresh decision with the direction that the AO/TPO should examine and decide afresh this aspect i.e. list of final comparables by deciding the functionality aspect as well as turnover filter aspect and while doing so this, judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) (P.)Ltd. Vs. DCIT(supra) should also be considered. Needless to say, adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee should be provided. Ground no. 6 is allowed for statistical purposes.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cgi Information Systems And Management ... vs Dcit, Bangalore on 21 April, 2017

15. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 in the revenue's appeal i.e., ITA No.45/Bang/2011 relate to the reduction of telecommunication expenses from the export turnover. This issue is also covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., 341 ITR 98 (Kar) in which it has been held that if certain expenses are excluded from the export turnover, the same should also be excluded from the total turnover. Since the CIT(Appeals) has decided the issue as per judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (supra), we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, the order of CIT(Appeals) is confirmed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 8 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Dcit, vs M/S Misys Software Solutions (India), ... on 27 September, 2017

(ii) This company has been held to be functionally not comparable to software service providers for Assessment Year 2007-08 by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case. This company has been held to be different from a software development company in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bindview India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No.1386/PN/2010.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next