SCHLUMBERGER SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4), DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5557/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 April 2026AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of several comparable entities, including M/s. Holtec Consulting Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Neilsoft Ltd., M/s. Axis Integrated Systems Ltd., M/s. Info Edge (India) Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Killick Agency and Marketing Ltd., based on functional dissimilarity. The assessee did not press for the inclusion of M/s. Inhouse Productions Ltd.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by the arm's length price (ALP) adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on international transactions related to project management and marketing support services. The assessee contested the inclusion and exclusion of various comparable entities used in the ALP determination.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correctness of the TPO's selection of comparable companies for determining the arm's length price of international transactions. This involved assessing the functional comparability of the selected entities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144C,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH “DB”, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Ankit Sahni, Adv, Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, CA
Hearing: 12.01.2026Pronounced: 10.04.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Dehradun’s assessment order dated 30.06.2017 framed in furtherance to the Dispute Resolution Panel “DRP”, New Delhi’s directions in objections no. 315/16-17, dated 28.04.2017 involving proceedings under section

ITA No.5557/Del/2017

144C/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action making arm’s length price “ALP” adjustment of Rs. 86,99,396/-, to the returned income of Rs.18,23,42,890/-; qua its international transactions executed with the Associated Enterprises “AEs” in twin segments of integrated project management and marketing support services amounting to Rs.82,51,827/- and 4,47,569/-, respectively. 3. Learned counsel submits at the outset that the assessee first of all wishes to contest improper exclusion and wrongful inclusion of various comparable entities apart from raising various other legal and factual contentions. The Revenue is equally fair in not raising any objections thereto. 4. We thus take up the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground canvassed in the instant appeal regarding wrongful inclusion and exclusion of various comparables. We advert to the former segment of integrated project management wherein the

2 | P a g e

ITA No.5557/Del/2017

assessee objects to the wrongful inclusion of M/s. Holtec Consulting Pvt. Ltd. by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer “TPO”. That being the case, our attention is invited to the learned coordinate bench’s order in the assessee’s appeal ITA No.291/Del/2019 decided on 14.08.02024 (AY: 2014-15) wherein it already stands concluded that M/s. Holtec Consulting Pvt. Ltd. is functionally dissimilar since providing engineering consultancy services. We thus reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions and direct for exclusion of this first and foremost entity from the array of comparables. 5. The factual position regarding the second comparable herein in this former segment of integrated project management services; namely, M/s. Neilsoft Ltd., is hardly any different since the same already stood excluded in tribunal’s order in the assessee’s case itself in preceding assessment year 2014-15 wherein the learned coordinate bench has concluded dissimilarity of the services performed. We thus direct exclusion of M/s. Neilsoft Ltd. from the array of the comparables as well. Learned TPO shall finalize his consequential computation afresh as per law.

3 | P a g e

ITA No.5557/Del/2017

6.

Next comes the assessee’s latter segment of marketing support segment services involving ALP adjustment of Rs.4,47,569/- in issue. Learned lower authorities first of all appear to have included M/s. Axis Integrated Systems Ltd. in the array of comparables thereby rejecting its objections all along that the same is very much functionally dissimilar entity. Learned counsel not only invites our attention to the TPO’s order at page 24 of the paper- book that this entity provides liasioning services but also various judicial precedents, namely, Bergen Engines (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, [2020] 117 taxmann.com 336 (Delhi -Trib.), already directing exclusion thereof in very terms. We thus reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions and direct for exclusion of M/s. Axis Integrated Systems Ltd. for the purpose of computation of assessee’s ALP in marketing support services segment. 7. Learned counsel continues his arguments qua the second entity M/s. Info Edge (India) Pvt. Ltd. herein which undisputedly stands excluded in its own case decided in AY 2014-15 (supra) in para 9 (page 4 to 5). We thus adopt judicial consistency to reject the Revenue’s stand herein in very terms.

4 | P a g e

ITA No.5557/Del/2017

8.

This third entity herein which has raised the issue of its inclusion between the parties is M/s. Killick Agency and Marketing Ltd. in the latter segment of marketing support services. Learned counsel refers to both the TPO’s order at pages 24 to 25 as well as the DRP’s directions at page 31 that this entity derives its revenue mostly from services and commission and performs functions closely similar functions; but at the same time, learned coordinate bench in Roxtech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 3840/Del/2017, dated 22.02.2021 has already concluded the very entity as functionally different. We thus reject the Revenue’s vehement contention supporting its conclusion to accept the assessee’s stand seeking exclusion thereof in very terms. 9. Learned counsel lastly submits that the assessee no more wishes to press for inclusion of M/s. Inhouse Productions Ltd. with a caveat that the same is not treated as a precedent. The Revenue is equally fair in not raising any objection to the very effect. Learned TPO is accordingly directed to finalize his consequential computation as per law. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us. 10. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

5 | P a g e

ITA No.5557/Del/2017

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th April, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 10th April, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

6 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →