Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Csg Systems International Private ... on 31 July, 2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. CSG Systems International (India) Private Limited, [Formerly known as The Deputy Independent Technology Commissioner of Income ITA No. Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.], Tax, 201011 2026/Bang/2017 Divyasree Towers, 4th Floor, Circle 11 (3), No. 55, Guruppanna Palya, Bangalore. Madivala Range, Bangalore 560 029. PAN: AABCI2954B M/s. CSG Systems IT(TP)A Nos. International (India) Private Limited, 201011 2642/Bang/2017 [Formerly known as The Deputy Commissioner of Independent Technology Income Tax, Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.], Circle 2 (1) (1), Divyasree Towers, Bangalore. 4th Floor, IT(TP)A Nos. No. 55, Guruppanna 201112 2643/Bang/2017 Palya, Madivala Range, Bangalore 560 029. PAN: AABCI2954B Assessee by : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) & Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 09.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 ORDER Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This bunch of three appeals is including two cross appeals of assessee and revenue for Assessment Year 201011 and one appeal of revenue only for Assessment Year 201112. All these three appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 2026/Bang/2017 for Assessment Year 201011 are as under. "Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CSG ITA No. 2026/Bang/2017 & IT(TP)A Nos. 2642 & 2643/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 23 Systems International (India) Private Limited ("CSG India" or the "Company" or the "Appellant") respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal under section 253 of the Incometax Act, 1961 ("the Act") against the order dated 21 August 2017 passed by the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals), Circle 3 ["CIT(A)"], Bangalore under section 250 of the Act on the following grounds: That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts, by upholding adjustment made by the learned Assessing Officer ("AO") / Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") to the arm's length price of the international transactions of software development services rendered by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprise ("AE"); 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by not accepting the Appellant's plea in entirety and upholding the action of the learned AO/TPO of rejection of Transfer Pricing Documentation ['TP Documentation'] including economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Incometax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") by erroneously invoking provision of section 92C(3)(a) and (c) of the Act without providing cogent reasons; 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts, by upholding the action of learned AP/TPO of disregarding certain comparable companies selected by the appellant in the TP Documentation and instead conducted fresh search and thereby erroneously selected additional comparable companies for determination of the arm's length price in connection with the impugned international transaction and holding that the international transaction entered into by the Appellant is n