KANTAR ANALYTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FIREFLY MARKET RESERCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF ANALYTICS QUOTIENT SERVICE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4733/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 November 2025AY 2020-2142 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the adjustment of Rs. 5,52,62,002 made by the TPO/AO/DRP on account of management consultancy services was unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including service agreements and cost allocation workings, to demonstrate that services were rendered and that the ALP was not Nil. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's 'Other Method' as the primary method for determining the arm's length nature of the mark-ups, supported by a corroborative TNMM analysis. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to accept the assessee's benchmarking framework and verify the same, noting that the TPO's determination of ALP at Nil was inconsistent with domestic law and international best practices. Consequently, the adjustment was deleted. Regarding the time-bar issue (Ground 2), the Tribunal did not explicitly rule on it but allowed other grounds. The issue of the assessment order being passed on the old PAN (Ground 4) was implicitly addressed by allowing the appeal on other grounds, suggesting the order's invalidity. The Tribunal also allowed Additional Grounds 12-13, stating that an alternate disallowance under Section 37 could not be made as it was not proposed in the draft assessment order and the DRP had directed it without issuing notice. The legal issue raised in Additional Ground 11 was kept open. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A were not discussed in detail but were implicitly set aside with the deletion of the primary addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kantar Analytics India Private Limited (formerly Firefly Market Research India Private Limited, successor to Analytics Quotient Services India Private Limited), filed an appeal against the final assessment order dated 22/07/2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal challenges the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 5,52,62,002 made on account of management charges, the validity of the assessment order, the methods applied for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP), and the initiation of penalty proceedings. The assessee also raised additional grounds concerning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and an alternate disallowance under Section 37. The assessee was merged with Analytics Quotient India Private Limited, which had a different PAN, and the assessment order was passed under the old PAN.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Assessing Officer (AO) erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 5,52,62,002 for management charges under Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and other provisions (Section 92C, 92CA, Rule 10B, 10C). The assessee argued that the services were rendered, supported by documentation, and the ALP was correctly determined using the 'Other Method' with a 5% and 10% mark-up, corroborated by TNMM analysis. The revenue, through the TPO/AO/DRP, contended that the ALP should be Nil, disputing the nature and benefit of services and the method used. 2. Whether the AO erred in issuing the final assessment order beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153 of the Act. The assessee argued the order was time-barred. The revenue's contention is not recorded. 3. Whether the TPO, AO, and DRP erred in not applying one of the prescribed methods mandated by Section 92C(1) of the Act. The assessee argued that the 'Other Method' was appropriate and that the TPO/AO/DRP failed to apply any prescribed method. The revenue's contention is not recorded. 4. Whether the AO erred in passing the final assessment order under the old PAN of the merged entity (Analytics Quotient India Private Limited), making the order without jurisdiction as it was passed on a non-existent entity (Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13)). The assessee argued the order is invalid. The revenue's contention is not recorded. 5. Whether the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act. The assessee's contention is that penalty proceedings should not have been initiated. The revenue's contention is not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92C,Section 92CA,Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 153,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, Karnik Kansara, Ms. Neha Rai, Mr. Somaskandan
For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, SR. D.R
Hearing: 22.09.2025Pronounced: 24.11.2025

Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.:

The Present appeal filed by the assessment arises out of the final assessment order dated 22/07/2024 passed by Ld.ACIT Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai for assessment year 2020-21 on following grounds of appeal: “The grounds stated here under are independent of, and without prejudice to one another. General

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Transfer Pricing Of

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 92C

All 1,769 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →