Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.44 seconds)
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Amd India Private Limited, Bangalore on 17 October, 2025 cites

Autodesk India Private Limited, ... vs Dcit, Bangalore on 8 June, 2018

In the case of Autodesk India P Ltd v DCIT [96 taxmann.com 263], it was held as below "17. The first issue to be decided in Revenue's appeal is the application of turnover filter for exclusion of companies that are otherwise found to be functionally comparable. The Grievance of the revenue in this regard is projected in Gr.No.2 of the Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in its appeal. The basic facts to be noticed with regard application of turnover filter are that the Assessee's turnover for the relevant previous year was Rs.10.65 crores. The TPO excluded from the list of comparable companies chosen by the Assessee in its TP study companies whose turnover was less than Rs.1 Crore. The contention of the Assessee before the CIT(A) was that while the TPO excluded companies with low turnover, he failed to apply the same yardstick to exclude companies with high turnover compared to the Assessee. The reason for IT(TP)A Nos.1858 & 2031/Bang/2024 AMD India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 17 of 47 excluding companies with low turnover was that such companies do not reflect the industry trend as their low cost to sales ratio made their results less reliable. The contention of the Assessee was that there would be effect on profitability wherever there is high or low turnover and therefore companies with high turnover should also be excluded from the list of comparable companies.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 9 - Cited by 60 - Full Document

Amd India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs Acit, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore on 26 June, 2023

v. DCIT (reported in [2020] 116 taxmann.com 421 (Bangalore - Trib.)) and the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in EPAM Systems India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 335 (Hyd-Trib), where in the cases of similarly placed assessees, the company was directed to be excluded. In IT(TP)A Nos.1858 & 2031/Bang/2024 AMD India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 32 of 47 view of the above, she submitted that this company ought to stand excluded from the final list of comparables. 7. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. DRP.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 68 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Consulting Engineering Services ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 21 October, 2020

IT(TP)A Nos.1858 & 2031/Bang/2024 AMD India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 34 of 47 Thus, Mindtree should be rejected as comparable as failing upper turnover filter of Rs. 200 crores. Further, from the details given in the paper book, it is clear that Mindtree is into diversified activities and is not pure software development company. This view is supported by the decision in the case of Arctern Consulting Pvt Ltd v DCIT (supra) wherein it is held as below:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Trans Freight Containers Ltd., Mumbai vs Dcit , Circle- 3 (3)(2), Mumbai on 7 February, 2020

I am unable to accept such a plea, as there is nothing on record to take a view that these assets were held as capital. A plain reading of Section 28(i)(iv) read with section 2(24) would show that there is no bar in receiving benefit/perquisite in the form of an asset. The requirement of the section 28(i)(iv) is that it should be a benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, which requirement is satisfied in the facts of the case. It is also noted that the ratio laid down by the Apex court decision in the case of CIT vs. TV Sundaram lyengar& Sons (222 ITR 344) and the High Court's decisions in Solid Containers Ltd vs. DCIT (308 ITR 417), Logitronics Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (333 ITR 386), would squarely apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, I am inclined to uphold the view of the Ld. Assessing officer and accordingly the impugned disallowance is upheld. Ground dismissed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 22 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Mid East Port Folio Management Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 14 August, 2003

16. Therefore the test for a benefit to be taxed under section 28(iv) as laid down in the above decision is that the benefit should irretrievable and that the benefit is received with an intention to circumvent income. For example a person is selling a product at a discounted price and is getting a gift or other benefit from the purchaser then the value of such gift or benefit is to be treated as business income under section 28(iv) since the benefit received has a direct nexus to the discounted price which is shown as the business income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 77 - Cited by 98 - Full Document

M/S Dell International Services India ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Ltu , ... on 24 June, 2020

In the case of Dell International Services India (P) Ltd. (supra), the tribunal took note of a divergent view expressed by ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Robert Bosch Engg. and Business Solutions Ltd. v. Dy. CIT ITA No.1519/Bang/2013 order dated 13.9.2017 after considering the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India (P.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering & Business ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- ... on 5 July, 2023

In the case of Dell International Services India (P) Ltd. (supra), the tribunal took note of a divergent view expressed by ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Robert Bosch Engg. and Business Solutions Ltd. v. Dy. CIT ITA No.1519/Bang/2013 order dated 13.9.2017 after considering the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors India (P.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Adp Pvt. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad, ... on 28 February, 2017

• M/s. NTS Technology Services Pvt Ltd. (TS-239-ITAT-2023 Bang-TP for AY 18-19) • M/s Radisys India Limited (TS-823-ITAT-2022Bang-TP) for AY 2017-18 • ADP Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs DCIT-1(1), Hyderabad [2022] 135 taxmann.com 44 (Hyderabad - Trib.) for AY 2016-17 18.1 The ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 18.2 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We note from the financial statements placed at page 1830-1837 of PB that the company's overview is as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next