• Conexant Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (AY 2011-12) - ITA
No. 464/Hyd/2016 - Para 9 Page 8 (Page 23 of the
compilation)
• CIT vs. Intoto Software India Private Limited - ITA No.
233/2014 (AP HC) - Page 2 (Page 27 of the compilation)
• Intoto Software India Private Limited vs. ACI T (2014) 146
lTD 360 (Hyd ITAT) - Para 25 Page 10 (Page 37 of the
compilation)
• PCIT vs. Saxo India (P) Ltd. - ITA 682/2016 (Del HC) -
Para 4,5,10 (Page 47,48 & 51 of the compilation)
• Saxo India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (AY 2011 -12) - (2016) 176
TTJ 540 (Del ITAT)- Para 14 Page 15-16 (Page 67-68 of the
compilation)
• Medpluxes India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (AY 2011 -12) - ITA No.
411/Hyd/2016 - Para 6.1-6.2 & 8 Page 10-11 & 14 (Page 80-
81,84 of the compilation)
• Symantec Software & Services India (P.)
"• Conexant Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (AY 2011 -12) - ITA
No. 464/Hyd/2016 - Para 9 Page 8 (Page 23 ofthe
compilation)
• CIT vs. Intoto Software India Private limited - ITA No.
233/2014 (AP HC) - Page 2 (Page 27 of the compilation)
• Intoto Software India Private limited vs. ACIT (2014) 146
lTD 360 (Hyd ITAT) - Para 25 Page 10 (Page 37 of the
compilation)
• PClT vs. Saxo India (P) Ltd. - ITA 682/2016 (Del HC) -
Para 4,5,10 (Page 47,48 & 51 of the compilation)
11 ITA.No. 475/Hyd/2016
Syniverse Technologies Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.
9. We have considered the rival contentions. As seen from the orders
placed on record and also consistent stand taken by the Tribunal in
various such cases, we have no hesitation in excluding two companies,
Persistent Systems Ltd., and Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd on
functionality basis. As far as Evoke Technologies Pvt. Ltd., is concerned,
this company was also argued to be included in the case of Electronic
Arts Games (India) Private Ltd., Vs. Dy.CIT (supra). But the Bench did not
accept on the reason that assessee has accepted the exclusion in a later
year. However, as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel, this company is
functionally similar to assessee-company and the annual report does not
disclose any peculiar economic circumstances as stated by the DRP.
Moreover, the said consultancy charges were shown under the head
administrative expenditure and the increase in administrative
expenditure is proportionate to increase in turnover. Therefore, we are
of the opinion that Evoke Technologies Pvt. Ltd., can be included as a
comparable company."
• Conexant Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (AY 2011-12) - ITA
No. 464/Hyd/2016 - Para 9 Page 8 (Page 23 of the
compilation)
• CIT vs. Intoto Software India Private Limited - ITA No.
233/2014 (AP HC) - Page 2 (Page 27 of the compilation)
• Intoto Software India Private Limited vs. ACI T (2014) 146
lTD 360 (Hyd ITAT) - Para 25 Page 10 (Page 37 of the
compilation)
• PCIT vs. Saxo India (P) Ltd. - ITA 682/2016 (Del HC) -
Para 4,5,10 (Page 47,48 & 51 of the compilation)
• Saxo India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (AY 2011 -12) - (2016) 176
TTJ 540 (Del ITAT)- Para 14 Page 15-16 (Page 67-68 of the
compilation)
• Medpluxes India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (AY 2011 -12) - ITA No.
411/Hyd/2016 - Para 6.1-6.2 & 8 Page 10-11 & 14 (Page 80-
81,84 of the compilation)
• Symantec Software & Services India (P.)