GOGLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: The present appeal arises from the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) and section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] dated 30.10.2025 for Assessment Year 2022–23, pursuant to the directions issued by

2 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited the Dispute Resolution Panel [hereinafter referred to as "DRP"] under section 144C(5) dated 30.09.2025. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee had originally filed its return of income under section 139(1) on 28.10.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 2,56,40,410/-. The return was selected for scrutiny under CASS primarily on account of “large value of international transactions in services in comparison to revenue from sale of services for ITES and low profitability (T.P. risk parameter)”. During the course of assessment proceedings, a reference under section 92CA(1) was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer [hereinafter referred to as "TPO"] for determination of the Arm’s Length Price of the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises (AE). The TPO, vide order passed under section 92CA(3) dated 27.01.2025, proposed an adjustment of Rs. 6,99,33,200/- in respect of such transactions. Consequent to the said adjustment, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) on 04.02.2025 proposing to assess the total income at Rs. 9,55,73,610/-. Aggrieved by the variations proposed therein, the assessee filed objections before the DRP in terms of section 144C(2). The DRP, after considering the objections and submissions of the assessee, passed directions under section 144C(5) on 30.09.2025, whereby the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the TPO was confirmed. Pursuant thereto, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order under section

3 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited 143(3) read with section 144C(13) determining the total income in accordance with such directions. 3. The assessee company is engaged in providing comprehensive Human Resource Management Consultancy Services and operates exclusively in a single business segment Management Consultancy Services, with a distinct focus on Human Resources Management. The Company’s principal office is located in Mumbai, India. The assessee’s scope of services includes recruitment, compensation and benefits, training and development, employee relations, and performance management. The primary responsibility of the assessee is to recruit employees on behalf of its Associated Enterprise (AE), provide requisite training for skill enhancement, and ensure full compliance with local labor laws. The assessee further extends consultancy support to AEs entering the Indian market by providing advisory and staffing solutions, including contractual, skilled, unskilled, and managerial personnel. The Company also provides allied and placement services both within India and abroad. 4. During the year under consideration, the assessee entered into international transactions primarily with its AEs, namely GoGlobal GEO Ltd., Hong Kong and GoGlobal K.K., Japan, mainly towards provision of services and reimbursement of expenses. The entire revenue of the assessee was stated to be derived from export of services to its AEs.

4 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited 5. For the purpose of benchmarking its international transactions, the assessee adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method and followed a cost-plus model as per the service agreement entered into with its Associated Enterprises, providing for a markup of approximately 5% on costs. The assessee selected certain comparable companies based on its functional profile and contended that its transactions were at arm’s length. 6. During the course of proceedings before TPO, the assessee furnished detailed submissions including functional analysis, service agreement and benchmarking study. However, the TPO rejected the comparables selected by the assessee and proceeded to select a fresh set of comparables on a suo motu basis. The TPO determined that the margin earned by the assessee was not at arm’s length and proposed an adjustment of Rs. 6,99,33,200/- .The TPO observed that the assessee had reported an Operating Profit to Operating Cost (OP/OC) margin of about 3.51%, which, according to him, was lower than the stipulated markup of 5% under the service agreement. On this basis, the TPO held that the benchmarking analysis carried out by the assessee was not reliable and required adjustment. 7. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel raising both jurisdictional and substantive grounds. The principal contentions of the assessee were that:

5 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited  The draft assessment order was invalid in law as it was passed without issuing a show cause notice for the proposed variations, thereby violating the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 144C(1) and the principles of natural justice.  The TPO failed to correctly appreciate the functional profile of the assessee, which was confined to Human Resource Management Consultancy Services, and erroneously treated it as generic management consultancy.  The comparables selected by the assessee were arbitrarily rejected and replaced by functionally dissimilar companies engaged in diverse activities such as IT consulting, real estate advisory, public relations, marketing and education services, without conducting proper FAR analysis .  The TPO failed to apply the export filter despite the assessee having 100% export revenue, and included domestic companies having no foreign exchange earnings, contrary to Rule 10B.  High turnover companies with turnover ranging from Rs. 208 crore to Rs. 1,113 crore were selected as comparables, despite the assessee having turnover of about Rs. 66 crore, thereby distorting the comparability analysis .

6 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited  The service agreement, which governed the cost-plus 5% pricing mechanism, was not properly considered, leading to an erroneous conclusion regarding the assessee’s margin.  The computation of OP/OC margin by the TPO was incorrect as it included certain expenses which, according to the assessee, were either reimbursable or disallowed in computation, thereby artificially depressing the margin below the agreed 5% level. The assessee thus contended that the transfer pricing adjustment was based on erroneous appreciation of facts and law and that its international transactions were at arm’s length. 8. The DRP, after considering the submissions of the assessee and the material on record, did not accept the contentions raised by the assessee. The Panel upheld the action of the TPO in selecting the comparables and determining the arm’s length price. The DRP observed that the services rendered by the assessee fall within the broader category of management consultancy services and accordingly accepted the comparables selected by the TPO. The Panel further held that the service agreement primarily governs pricing and does not materially affect the comparability analysis. The objections of the assessee regarding export filter, turnover filter and functional dissimilarity were thus rejected. Accordingly, the DRP confirmed the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the TPO.

7 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited 9. Being aggrieved by the said action of the lower authorities, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us and has raised following grounds of appeal:

8 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited 7. That the Learned DRP has erred in accepting the action of Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) has disregarded the explicit terms of the Service Agreement and the assessee’s business model has resulted in an erroneous functional characterization and a legally unsustainable transfer-pricing assessment. 8. That the Learned DRP has erred in accepting the action of Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) has incorrectly determined the assessee’s Operating Profit to Operating Cost (OP/OC) margin at 3.51 percent on a suo motu basis without any proper working or correlation with the audited financials and the Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR). 9. That the Learned DRP has erred in accepting the action of Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) has incorrectly ignored The assessee’s contractual cost-plus-5 percent markup model without substantiated reasoning. This erroneous computation distorts the benchmarking analysis and renders the resultant adjustment unsustainable in law. 10. The DRP failed to appreciate that the assessee is exclusively engaged in Human Resource Management Consultancy Services under a cost-plus-5 percent model and not in general management or IT-enabled services. 10. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative(AR) submitted that having regard to the Master Service Agreement dated 10.05.2019, the Transfer Pricing Study Report and the FAR analysis, the activities performed by the assessee are in the nature of specialized Human Resource Management Consultancy Services and are confined to rendering support services to its Associated Enterprises on a cost-plus basis. It was submitted that as per the Master Service Agreement, the assessee is primarily responsible for appointment and management of staff members, including recruitment of personnel possessing requisite skill sets and deploying them for execution of services. The assessee, in its capacity as employer, undertakes complete responsibility for compliance with labour laws and other statutory regulations and exercises control over

9 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited the staff members by way of supervision, allocation of work, determination of working hours, performance evaluation and disciplinary control. 11. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee, through its designated manager, provides instructions and supervision to the staff members and acts as a liaison with the Associated Enterprise, ensuring proper execution and monitoring of the services rendered. The services are performed with due care and responsibility, and periodic reporting of progress is made to the Associated Enterprise as per contractual obligations. It was further submitted that as per Schedule 1 of the agreement, the assessee functions as a service provider to its foreign Associated Enterprises and renders a bouquet of business support services, which inter alia include human resource services, management consultancy services, market research and marketing support, business development support, accounting and operational services, and other ancillary services as may be required. However, it was emphasized that the core and dominant activity of the assessee is Human Resource Management Consultancy Services. The Ld. AR also drew our attention to Schedule 2 of the agreement, which provides that the remuneration to the assessee is determined on a cost-plus basis, wherein the assessee is entitled to a markup of 5% on the total costs incurred in rendering such services, including employee costs, statutory contributions and other related expenses, while out-of-pocket and vendor expenses are reimbursed at actuals.

10 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited 12. On the basis of the above, it was contended that the functional profile of the assessee is that of a limited risk service provider engaged in routine support services to its Associated Enterprises under a contractual cost-plus arrangement, and therefore the comparability analysis undertaken by the TPO, by selecting functionally dissimilar entities, is fundamentally flawed. 13. The Ld. AR further submitted that for the purpose of benchmarking its international transactions, the assessee had undertaken a systematic and scientific search process in its Transfer Pricing Study by using the ACE TP Database to identify comparable companies engaged in broadly similar lines of activities. It was submitted that the initial search was carried out by considering companies engaged in business support services, market research and marketing support services, human resource services, management consultancy services, business development and support services, accounting and operational services, as well as engineering, IT and software support services. Based on such search criteria, a total of 2085 companies were initially identified. The Ld. AR submitted that thereafter, the assessee applied a series of quantitative filters to refine the search results. Firstly, only those companies for which financial data for Financial Year 2020–21 was available were retained, which reduced the number of comparables to 314 companies. Secondly, a turnover filter was applied, restricting the set to companies having turnover up to Rs. 200 crores, thereby narrowing down the list to 241 companies.

11 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited 14. It was further submitted that considering that the assessee was engaged in export of services to its Associated Enterprises, an export filter was applied and only those companies having export turnover greater than 0% were retained, resulting in elimination of a substantial number of companies. Thereafter, a related party transaction filter was applied whereby companies having related party transactions exceeding 25% of revenue were excluded to ensure independence, and the set was further reduced. The Ld. AR submitted that an employee cost filter was then applied by selecting companies having employee cost exceeding 50% of operating cost, so as to ensure comparability with the assessee’s service-oriented and labour-intensive business model. This resulted in a further narrowing down of the list to 21 companies. Finally, a qualitative review was undertaken wherein companies found to be functionally dissimilar or otherwise not comparable were excluded with recorded reasons. Pursuant to such detailed analysis, the assessee arrived at a final set of 7 comparable companies along with their respective operating profit margins for the purpose of benchmarking. Following are the final set of comparable companies with their respective profile:

S. Company Name Key Business Activities & Functional Profile No. 1. Hurix Systems Pvt. It provides digital content and technology services, Ltd. specialising in the development and transformation of educational and training content into digital formats. Its activities include creation of eLearning content, content transformation from legacy to contemporary digital formats, technology solutions for educational institutions and enterprises, and digital strategy

12 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited support for learning and publishing platforms. 2. Orchasp Ltd. Orchasp Ltd. is an Indian information technology company engaged in computer programming, consultancy, and related IT services. Its operations include custom software development, system integration services, network and surveillance solutions, cloud-based solutions, business process services, and related technology services. The company serves multiple sectors such as healthcare, telecommunications, manufacturing, engineering, energy, and retail, and offers application development, automation services, cybersecurity, IoT and AI-based solutions. 3. Batchmaster BatchMaster Software Pvt. Ltd. develops enterprise Software Pvt. Ltd. resource planning (ERP) software specifically for process manufacturing industries such as food & beverage, pharmaceuticals, chemicals & coatings, nutraceuticals, and personal care. Its software supports functions including formulation, production, inventory, quality control, compliance, and integration with financial systems. The company also offers ERP implementation, technical support, and training services to process manufacturers. 4. Pathpartner PathPartner Technology Pvt. Ltd. provides product Technology Pvt. engineering and research-and-development services. Ltd. Its activities include embedded systems development, hardware and software integration, digital signal processing, computer vision and imaging technologies, deep learning, multimedia solutions, and related technology services for sectors including automotive, consumer electronics, broadcast and IoT devices. 5. ASM Technologies ASM Technologies Ltd. is an engineering and Ltd. technology services company that offers product development and engineering solutions across various industrial verticals. Its business activities include outsourced product development, cloud and IoT applications, project management consultancy, sustenance engineering, and support services for technology products. The company works with customers on engineering design, product lifecycle support, and domain-specific technology solutions. 6. TVS Next Ltd. TVS Next Ltd. is a technology and digital consulting firm that provides digital transformation and enterprise technology services. Its activities include

13 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited Technology consulting, software engineering, cloud engineering, Experience engineering, data strategy and analytics, AI and machine learning, quality assurance, experience engineering and agile Program Management. The company works with enterprises to modernise legacy systems, develop digital platforms, and leverage data and AI to drive business outcomes. 7. CG-VAK Software & CG-VAK Software & Exports Ltd. is a technology Exports Ltd. company engaged in offshore software development and IT consulting services. Its business activities include Product Engineering, Mobile Apps Development, Progressive Web App, Web Application Development, Ecommerce Solutions, Healthcare IT Solutions, Education IT Solutions, IT Consulting, Cross Platform, Cloud Computing, software development and product development. The company serves clients internationally across sectors such as healthcare, education, and enterprise IT.

14 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited the assessee’s turnover. Since the assessee’s turnover was Rs. 66.04 crores, the TPO directed that companies having turnover between Rs. 6.6 crores and Rs. 660.40 crores should be considered as comparables. The Ld. AR further submitted that in respect of export filter, while the assessee had applied a filter of export turnover greater than 0%, the TPO modified the same and directed that only those companies having export turnover exceeding 75% of total revenue should be selected, having regard to the fact that the assessee had 100% export revenue. It was further submitted that the TPO accepted the filters relating to related party transactions being less than 25% of revenue and employee cost being greater than 50% of operating cost as appropriate filters. In addition to the above, the TPO also prescribed certain qualitative filters, namely, exclusion of companies having negative net worth and elimination of persistent loss-making companies, being those incurring operating losses for three consecutive years including Financial Year 2021–22. The Ld. AR submitted that the TPO, instead of examining the comparables selected by the assessee on their own merits, sought to impose an altogether different set of filters, which ultimately resulted in selection of a completely different set of comparables, many of which were functionally dissimilar to the assessee. 16. The Ld. AR further submitted that in compliance with the directions contained in the notice issued by the TPO under section 92D(3), the assessee undertook a fresh search for

15 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited comparables by applying the modified filters as prescribed by the TPO. It was submitted that despite adopting the revised filters in entirety, including the modified turnover range, export turnover threshold, and qualitative parameters, the search process conducted on the ACE TP Database yielded the same set of comparable companies as originally identified by the assessee. 17. The Ld. AR thus contended that the outcome of the fresh search clearly demonstrates that the comparables selected by the assessee were robust and satisfied even the stricter and modified criteria suggested by the TPO. The Ld. AR further submitted that based on such revised set of comparables, the arm’s length range computed between the 35th percentile and 65th percentile worked out to 1.97% to 15.75%, respectively. The assessee’s margin, determined at 4.76%, fell well within the aforesaid arm’s length range, thereby demonstrating that the international transactions undertaken by the assessee were at arm’s length. 18. The Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid factual position clearly demonstrates that the rejection of the comparables selected by the assessee by the TPO is arbitrary and not founded upon any cogent functional analysis. It was contended that despite the assessee having undertaken a fresh search by strictly applying the filters prescribed by the TPO, the same set of comparable companies continued to be selected, thereby validating the robustness of the original benchmarking carried out by the assessee. It was further submitted that the comparables identified by the assessee were based on a proper

16 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited FAR analysis and were in conformity with the statutory provisions and prescribed rules. In such circumstances, once the outcome of the benchmarking exercise remained unchanged even after adopting the filters suggested by the TPO, there was no justification either for disregarding the assessee’s comparables or for substituting the same with a different set of comparables selected unilaterally by the TPO. The Ld. AR thus contended that the consistency in results, even after applying the revised filters, clearly establishes that the assessee’s margin falls within the arm’s length range and, therefore, the transfer pricing adjustment made by the lower authorities is unsustainable in law. 19. The Ld. AR further submitted that despite the detailed reply furnished by the assessee and the fact that the same set of comparables continued to be selected even after applying the filters prescribed by the TPO, the Learned TPO rejected the comparables identified by the assessee without assigning any cogent reasons. It was submitted that thereafter the TPO issued a show cause notice under section 92C(3), wherein it was acknowledged that as per the service agreement with the Associated Enterprise, the assessee was operating under a cost- plus model with a markup of 5%, and that the assessee had adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method and selected seven comparable companies with an arm’s length range of 1.99% to 11.51%.However, the Ld. AR submitted that the TPO, without properly dealing with the search criteria and acceptance or rejection matrix adopted by the assessee, summarily held that

17 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited the comparables selected by the assessee were not appropriate. It was observed by the TPO that although the assessee was engaged in management consultancy services, the selected comparables were primarily engaged in IT services and were therefore functionally not comparable. 20. The Ld. AR submitted that, on this premise, the TPO disregarded not only the original set of comparables selected by the assessee but also the set of comparables which continued to qualify even after applying the filters prescribed by the TPO himself. Thereafter, the TPO proceeded to undertake a fresh search by applying an altogether new set of filters, without providing any justification for deviating from the earlier filters. 21. It was submitted that the fresh search conducted by the TPO was based on parameters such as data pertaining to Financial Year 2021–22, turnover range between one-tenth and ten times of the assessee’s turnover, service income exceeding 50%, related party transactions less than 25%, and selection of companies having positive net worth and consistent profitability, along with qualitative exclusion of functionally dissimilar companies. 22. The Ld. AR submitted that based on the search process conducted by the TPO, the following companies were identified by the TPO as comparable companies. The Ld. AR further submitted that the main nature of operations of these comparables and also

18 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited the reasoning as to why these companies are dissimilar to the functions of the Appellant is stated below:-

S. Company OP/O Operations Business Reasoning for the Operating No Name C Business Functions Dissimilarity and Appellants Comment on same. 1. AAA 31.53 AAA Technologies Pvt. Ltd. is a 1. AAA Technologies specializes Technologi % technology consulting and in IT consulting, software es Ltd services company that development, and systems specializes in providing integration, offering services like cutting-edge IT solutions, cloud computing, data analytics, software development, and and cybersecurity to diverse systems integration for clients across industries. businesses across various 2. GoGlobal India focuses industries. The company offers exclusively on Human Resources a wide range of services, Management Consultancy, including enterprise providing recruitment, training, application development, and staffing and solutions cloud computing, data specifically for its Associated analytics, cybersecurity, Enterprise (AE). digital transformation strategies. AAA Technologies Pvt. Ltd. works closely with clients to address their unique business challenges and improve operational efficiency through innovative technological solutions. With a focus on delivering high- quality, scalable, and secure solutions, the company is committed to helping businesses harness the power of technology to drive growth and stay competitive in the digital age. 2. Bain & Co. 5.68 Bain & Co. India Pvt. Ltd is a 1. Bain & Co. specializes in India Pvt. % management consulting firm, strategic advisory services across Ltd. offering strategic advisory industries, including corporate services to businesses across strategy, mergers and various industries. The firm acquisitions, operations, and specializes in providing organizational transformation, cutting-edge solutions in such catering to multiple clients to as areas corporate strategy, drive growth and solve complex

19 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited mergers and acquisitions, business challenges. operations, technology, organizational and transformation. Bain & Co. 2. GoGlobal India Pvt Ltd focuses India partners with leading exclusively on Human Resources organizations to drive Management Consultancy for its sustainable growth, enhance Associated Enterprise (AE), operational efficiency, and providing recruitment, training, optimize market positioning. compliance, and staffing Leveraging deep industry solutions to optimize workforce expertise, data-driven productivity and meet insights, and innovative operational needs. methodologies, the company helps clients navigate complex business challenges and achieve measurable results. 3. Channelpl 1.99 Channelplay Ltd is a leading 1. Channelplay Ltd specializes in ay Ltd. % provider of technology-driven technology-driven solutions for business solutions, retail, channel management, and specializing in retail sales enablement, targeting management, channel external client-facing operations management, and sales to enhance customer enablement services. engagement, optimize sales, and improve efficiency across The company offers a wide industries. range of innovative solutions aimed at optimizing sales, 2. GoGlobal India Pvt Ltd, on the enhancing customer other hand, focuses exclusively engagement, and improving on Human Resources operational efficiency various Management Consultancy, across industries. With providing recruitment, training, expertise in digital compliance, and staffing transformation and data solutions to its Associated analytics, Channelplay Ltd Enterprise (AE), with an helps businesses achieve emphasis on internal workforce greater visibility, streamline optimization and operational processes, and drive growth. support. 4. Cushman 10.25 Cushman & Wakefield (India) 1. Cushman & Wakefield (India) & % Pvt. Ltd. is a leading global Pvt. Ltd. operates in the real Wakefield real estate services firm that estate services sector, providing (India) Pvt. offers a wide array of solutions a broad range of services such as Ltd. to owners, occupiers, property valuation, advisory, investors. and The company project management, tenant specializes in services such as representation, and investment property valuation, advisory, services. It specializes in helping project management, tenant owners, occupiers, and investors

20 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited representation, and optimize their real estate assets investment services. Cushman and make informed, strategic & Wakefield's expertise decisions. Its focus is on real extends to industrial and estate solutions, particularly in logistics real estate, helping industrial and logistics real clients make informed, estate, leveraging its global strategic decisions. The firm network and local market leverages its global network expertise. and local market knowledge to 2. GoGlobal India Pvt. Ltd., on deliver innovative solutions, the other hand, operates in the assisting clients in optimizing human resources management their real estate assets consultancy sector. Its services achieving and business goals. are centered on recruitment, compensation and benefits, training and development, and employee relations. GoGlobal primarily supports its associated enterprise (AE) in managing HR functions, including staffing solutions, legal compliance, and performance management, focusing on enhancing workforce productivity and streamlining HR processes. 5. DKM 9.84 DKM Group is a leading % Online Pvt. outsourcing firm in India, Ltd. specializing in payroll processing, compensation benefits, retiral benefit schemes, and cloud-based payroll solutions. Their majorly sales are from domestic only. 6. EDCIL 17.30 EdCIL (India) Limited, a public 1. EdCIL (India) Ltd. specializes (India) Ltd. % sector enterprise under the in the education sector, Ministry of Education, providing consultancy services in Government of India, areas like educational specializes in providing infrastructure, digital education, management and consultancy advisory services, and skill services across the education development programs. It plays a and human resource significant role in enhancing development sectors. educational delivery and Established in 1981, the institution development. company offers a range of services, including educational

21 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited infrastructure development, 2. GoGlobal India Pvt. Ltd. digital education systems, focuses exclusively on Human advisory services, and skill Resources Management development programs. EdCIL Consultancy, providing plays a key role in enhancing recruitment, training, and educational delivery through staffing solutions to its digital classrooms, university Associated Enterprise (AE), with management systems, and ICT an emphasis on workforce labs, while also providing optimization and legal training and impact compliance. assessments for educational schemes. The company has been instrumental in the development of prominent institutions in India, focusing on education quality improvement and skill development. 7. Infollion 18.45 Infollion Research Services 1. Infollion Research Services Research % Ltd. is a market research and Ltd. specializes in market Services business intelligence company research and business Ltd. that specializes in providing intelligence, offering data-driven data-driven insights to help insights, competitive analysis, make decisions and drive and market forecasting to help organizations informed businesses understand market growth. The company offers a trends, optimize strategies, and drive growth. wide range of services, including market research, 2. GoGlobal India Pvt. Ltd. competitive analysis, and focuses exclusively on Human consumer behavior analysis. Resources Management, Infollion Research Resources Consultancy, providing Services Ltd. helps businesses recruitment, training and understand market trends, workforce solutions for its customer preferences and Associated Enterprise (AE), competitive landscapes ensuring compliance and through custom research optimizing workforce solutions, surveys, and data productivity analysis. Additionally, the company offers industry reports, data analytics, and market forecasting to assist clients in identifying new opportunities, optimizing strategies, and minimizing risks. By leveraging advanced analytical tools and

22 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited methodologies, Infollion Research Services Ltd. enables organizations to gain a deeper understanding of their market, make strategic decisions, and stay ahead of industry trends. 8. Leading 20.27 Leading Purpose Campaigns 1. Leading Purpose Campaigns Purpose % India Pvt. Ltd. is a strategic specializes in strategic Campaign communications and communications and marketing, s (India) marketing firm that specializes offering services like brand Pvt. Ltd. in purpose-driven campaigns. strategy, digital marketing, The company offers services public relations, and cause- including brand strategy related campaigns aimed at development to create enhancing brand presence, compelling narratives that reputation, and social impact. align with a brand's mission, and digital marketing to boost online presence through social 2. GoGlobal India focuses solely media, content marketing, and on Human Resources SEO. It also provides public Management Consultancy, relations to manage media providing recruitment, training, relations and enhance brand and workforce solutions reputation, alongside content exclusively for its Associated creation to produce engaging Enterprise (AE). articles, videos, and visuals. The firm excels in community engagement through targeted outreach, CSR campaigns that contribute to social causes, and cause-related marketing that connects brands to meaningful causes, driving awareness and customer loyalty. These services help brands create social impact, build trust, and strengthen connections with their audiences. 9. P R Pundit 12.93 PR Pundit Public Relations 1. PR Pundit Public Relations Public % Pvt. Ltd. is a full-service Pvt. Ltd. focuses on brand Relations public relations firm communications, influencer Pvt. Ltd. specializing in brand marketing, social media communications, influencer marketing, and communications. marketing, and social media Its corporate core business marketing, corporate revolves around enhancing communications. The brand visibility, managing

23 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited company offers a reputation, and delivering comprehensive suite of creative solutions across sectors services designed to enhance like luxury, lifestyle, and brand visibility and business. It specializes in reputation, including strategic strategic brand promotion and planning, creative solutions, media relations, particularly in and strong media relations niche industries such as luxury across various sectors such as and wines and spirits. luxury, lifestyle, and business. 2. GoGlobal India Pvt. Ltd., on PR Pundit has demonstrated the other hand, operates in the expertise in building and human resources management promoting heritage brands, consultancy sector, specializing particularly in the luxury and in recruitment, compensation wines and spirits industries, and benefits, training and showcasing a deep development, and performance understanding of brand management. The focus is on storytelling and market optimizing workforce positioning. productivity, ensuring legal The firm's commitment to compliance, and providing creativity, efficiency, and staffing solutions to its innovation has established it associated enterprise (AE). It as a trusted partner for clients plays a supporting role by seeking to elevate their brand assisting with HR functions and presence and engage helping its AE manage its effectively with target workforce needs both audiences. domestically and internationally. 10. Right 14.47 Right Management India Pvt 1. Right Management India Pvt. % Manageme Ltd specializes in talent Ltd. specializes in talent nt India management leadership and management and leadership Pvt. Ltd. development services. The development, offering services company offers a such as career transition, talent comprehensive suite of assessment, leadership solutions that include career development, and workforce talent leadership transition, planning to enhance assessment, development, and organizational effectiveness and workforce planning. It helps drive business growth. organizations build agile, 2. GoGlobal India Pvt. Ltd. innovative, and high- focuses exclusively on Human performing workforces. The Resources Management company is committed to Consultancy, providing services enhancing organizational like recruitment, training, effectiveness supporting compliance, and staffing businesses in managing talent solutions to optimize workforce and leadership challenges to for its Associated Enterprise drive growth and success. (AE).

24 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited 23. The Ld. AR submitted that many of these companies were engaged in diverse and unrelated lines of business, and were functionally dissimilar to the assessee’s activities, which are confined to Human Resource Management Consultancy Services. It was thus contended that the entire exercise undertaken by the TPO in rejecting the assessee’s comparables and selecting a new set of comparables is arbitrary, inconsistent and contrary to the settled principles governing transfer pricing analysis. 24. The Ld. AR further submitted that, apart from the primary factual and legal contentions as discussed hereinabove, the assessee had also raised specific additional grounds before the DRP challenging the approach adopted by the TPO in the selection of comparables. It was submitted that the TPO, despite categorically acknowledging that the assessee’s entire revenue was derived from export of services to its Associated Enterprises, arbitrarily failed to apply an appropriate export filter. The Ld. AR contended that such omission is contrary to the settled principles of comparability analysis, as companies having predominantly domestic operations cannot be considered comparable with an entity having 100% export-oriented operations. It was further submitted that the TPO had also erred in including companies having disproportionately high turnover, far exceeding Rs. 200 crores, as comparables. The Ld. AR contended that such high- turnover entities possess significant advantages in terms of scale, brand value, resources, and global reach, and therefore cannot be regarded as functionally comparable to the assessee, whose

25 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited turnover during the year under consideration was approximately Rs. 66 crores. 25. The Ld. AR further submitted that before the DRP, the assessee had furnished a detailed comparative functional analysis demonstrating the functional dissimilarity between the comparables selected suo motu by the TPO and the actual operations carried out by the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee had specifically placed on record a comprehensive comparison highlighting the nature of activities, functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed by the assessee vis-à-vis each of the comparables selected by the TPO. The said analysis, according to the Ld. AR, clearly brought out that the entities selected by the TPO were engaged in diverse and unrelated business activities such as IT consulting, real estate advisory, public relations, marketing, research and other specialized services, which are fundamentally distinct from the assessee’s core activity of Human Resource Management Consultancy Services. The Ld. AR submitted that this detailed functional comparison unequivocally demonstrated that the comparables selected by the TPO were not functionally similar and, therefore, could not be considered valid comparables for benchmarking purposes. It was contended that the selection of such companies vitiates the comparability analysis and renders the determination of the arm’s length price fundamentally flawed. 26. The Ld. AR further submitted that the approach adopted by the TPO in repeatedly modifying the filters and ultimately

26 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited selecting a new set of comparables amounts to impermissible cherry picking with a view to arrive at a predetermined result. It was contended that once the assessee had carried out a proper search and even complied with the revised filters suggested by the TPO, there was no justification for again altering the filters and discarding the comparables without any cogent reasoning. In this regard, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of DNV Business Assurance India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2134/Mum/2022), wherein it has been held that introduction of additional turnover filters at a later stage, after completion of the search process, amounts to cherry picking and is not permissible in law. The Ld. AR specifically drew our attention to the findings of the Bench in para 12 wherein it has been observed as under: “the turnover filter must be applied not as a tool for cherry picking at a later stage but at the time of the search process… There cannot be a pick and choose of comparables every year…” 27. It was further submitted that the Bench in the said decision has categorically held that a company which is otherwise functionally comparable cannot be rejected solely on the basis of turnover, particularly when such filter is introduced subsequently and not applied consistently at the stage of initial search. 28. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) strongly relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and supported the action of the TPO and the Assessing Officer.

27 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited 29. The Ld. DR drew our attention to the findings recorded by the TPO while rejecting the comparables selected by the assessee and submitted that the TPO had categorically observed that the search criteria and the acceptance or rejection matrix applied by the assessee for selection of comparables were not appropriate. It was further submitted that the TPO had noted that although the assessee is engaged in providing management consultancy services to its Associated Enterprises, the comparables selected by the assessee were primarily engaged in IT services and were therefore not functionally comparable. 30. The Ld. DR further invited our attention to the provisions of Rule 10TA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and submitted that the nature of services rendered by the assessee falls within the ambit of Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) services. In this regard, the Ld. DR specifically relied upon clause (g) of Rule 10TA, which defines “knowledge process outsourcing services” to include business process outsourcing services requiring application of knowledge and advanced analytical and technical skills, and which expressly includes “human resources services” within its scope. Placing reliance on the aforesaid statutory provision, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee’s activities, being in the nature of human resource services, are to be regarded as KPO services, which typically involve higher value-added functions. It was thus contended that the comparables selected by the TPO, even if engaged in broader or technologically driven service domains, cannot be outrightly rejected, as the functional profile

28 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited of the assessee itself falls within the wider spectrum of knowledge-based services. On the basis of the above, the Ld. DR submitted that the characterization adopted by the TPO is in consonance with the statutory definition and that the rejection of the assessee’s comparables, as well as the selection of a fresh set of comparables, is justified. 31. In response to the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the decision in DNV Business Assurance India Pvt. Ltd.(supra), the Ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of CNH Industrial (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1890/Mum/2022). The Ld. DR submitted that in the said decision, the Tribunal has upheld the application of turnover filter of one-tenth to ten times of the tested party’s turnover, holding that such filter is a valid and recognized tool for ensuring comparability between companies of similar scale and size. The Tribunal has observed that the purpose of applying turnover filter is to select companies having comparable economic circumstances and that both very small and very large companies may not be comparable. The Ld. DR specifically relied upon the findings of the Bench wherein it has been held that: “the turnover filter of 10 times more or less of assessee's turnover has been correctly applied by the learned TPO… especially when Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has also upheld the same.”(para 21) 32. It was further submitted that the Bench in the said case has taken note of judicial precedents including those of the Hon’ble

29 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited High Courts, which have approved the application of turnover filters as a valid parameter in transfer pricing analysis. 33. On the basis of the above, the Ld. DR contended that the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision in DNV Business Assurance India Pvt. Ltd. is distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied mechanically. It was submitted that the application of turnover filter in the present case is justified, as it is intended to ensure selection of comparables having similar scale of operations and does not, by itself, amount to cherry picking. 34. In conclusive rebuttal, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had undertaken a systematic and bona fide search for comparables by using the ACE TP database, wherein the functional profile as derived from the Master Service Agreement was input for identification of comparable companies. It was submitted that the database classifies functions in broad categories and, in the process, human resource services are grouped under IT/ITES segments. Accordingly, the initial search yielded a large number of companies engaged in IT/ITES activities. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s services, though categorized under IT/ITES by the database due to usage of technology such as payroll software, recruitment tools and interview management systems, are essentially routine and support-oriented Human Resource Management Consultancy Services rendered to its AEs. It was contended that the use of technology is incidental and does not alter the fundamental character of the services as low-end support services. It was

30 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited further submitted that although the TPO has also selected comparables from the IT/ITES domain, the companies chosen are engaged in high-end, knowledge-intensive and value-added services such as IT consulting, cybersecurity, analytics and global advisory services, which are functionally distinct from the routine HR support services rendered by the assessee. It was thus contended that the comparables selected by the TPO are not functionally similar and their higher margins are attributable to the specialized nature of services rendered by them. 35. The Ld. AR also controverted the contention of the Ld. DR that the assessee is engaged in high-end services by referring to the clauses of the Master Service Agreement, which clearly demonstrate that the assessee performs routine functions such as recruitment, training, staff management and compliance. It was emphasized that the remuneration model of cost plus 5% itself indicates that the assessee is a low-risk, low-value addition service provider, as such markup is generally associated with routine support services. 36. The Ld. AR further submitted that even the TPO, in his order, has acknowledged that where TNMM is adopted as the most appropriate method, broad comparability is to be considered and some degree of functional diversity is permissible, as it is not possible to find exact comparables. In such a scenario, it was contended that the comparables selected by the assessee, which satisfy the broad functional criteria, ought not to have been rejected. It was also submitted that the DRP has failed to record

31 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited any specific findings with regard to the comparables selected by the assessee as well as those selected by the TPO, thereby mechanically affirming the action of the TPO without independent application of mind. 37. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, the Ld. AR prayed that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the DRP be deleted. 38. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material placed on record, including the Transfer Pricing Study, Master Service Agreement, FAR analysis and the comparative analysis of the comparables. 39. At the outset, the primary controversy before us pertains to determination of the Arm’s Length Price of the international transactions undertaken by the assessee and, more particularly, whether the comparables selected by the assessee were rightly rejected by the TPO and substituted with a fresh set of comparables. 40. On perusal of the Master Service Agreement and the FAR analysis, we find that the assessee is engaged in rendering Human Resource Management Consultancy Services to its Associated Enterprises, which essentially comprise recruitment, training, employee management, compliance with labour laws and allied support services. A crucial aspect which emerges from the record is that the assessee is remunerated on a cost-plus 5%

32 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited basis. In transfer pricing jurisprudence, such a pricing model is a strong indicator of the assessee being a low-risk, captive service provider rendering routine support services. The markup of 5% is modest and consistent with low value-added functions, as opposed to high-end or knowledge-intensive services which typically command significantly higher margins. Thus, the characterization sought to be adopted by the Revenue that the assessee is engaged in high-end KPO services is not borne out from the contractual arrangement or the economic reality of the transaction. The mere fact that certain technology tools or software are used in rendering services does not elevate the nature of services to high-end KPO. What is relevant is the nature of functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed, which, in the present case, clearly demonstrate a limited risk, routine service provider model. 41. We further note that the assessee had undertaken a detailed search process using ACE TP database and applied multiple quantitative and qualitative filters, including turnover, export revenue, related party transactions and employee cost filters, followed by a qualitative FAR analysis. It is an undisputed fact on record that the assessee initially identified 2085 companies and narrowed them down through a systematic filtering process. A final set of 7 comparables was selected after detailed functional analysis and even after applying the modified filters prescribed by the TPO, the same set of comparables continued to be selected.

33 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited 42. Despite the above, the TPO rejected the comparables selected by the assessee. However, on careful perusal of the TPO’s order, we find that such rejection is bereft of any detailed functional analysis. The TPO has merely observed that the comparables are engaged in IT services without demonstrating how such companies are functionally dissimilar to the assessee’s activities. In our considered view, such a summary rejection of comparables, without examining the detailed FAR analysis carried out by the assessee, is not sustainable in law. 43. The assessee has placed on record a detailed tabular comparison of each of the comparables selected by the TPO vis-à- vis its own functional profile. From the said comparison, it is evident that the companies selected by the TPO are engaged in: i. IT consulting and software development ii. Cybersecurity and analytics iii. Real estate advisory iv. Public relations and marketing v. Strategic management consulting 44. These activities are clearly high-end, knowledge-intensive and diversified services, which are fundamentally distinct from the routine HR support services rendered by the assessee. We find that neither the TPO nor the DRP has dealt with this detailed functional comparison. There is no discussion as to why the objections raised by the assessee against each of these

34 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited comparables are not acceptable. Such non-consideration of relevant material vitiates the comparability analysis. 45. Another significant aspect which merits consideration is the conduct of the TPO in repeatedly modifying the filters. The sequence of events shows that:  The TPO initially rejected the assessee’s filters and prescribed new filters.  The assessee applied such filters and arrived at the same set of comparables.  Thereafter, the TPO again changed the filters and conducted a fresh search. This approach, in our considered view, amounts to arbitrary selection of comparables with a view to achieve a predetermined result. 46. In this regard, the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the decision in DNV Business Assurance India Pvt. Ltd. is well founded, wherein it has been held that introduction of filters at a later stage to alter the outcome of the search process amounts to impermissible cherry picking. 47. The Ld. DR has relied upon the decision in CNH Industrial (India) Pvt. Ltd. to justify the application of turnover filter. We have carefully perused the said decision. The relevant finding reads as under:

35 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited “the turnover filter of 10 times more or less of assessee's turnover has been correctly applied…” 48. However, the said decision is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the turnover filter was applied as part of a consistent and reasoned comparability analysis. In the present case, the turnover filter has been introduced and modified at multiple stages, and more importantly, the same has not been applied consistently to the entire dataset. Further, in the present case, even after applying the filters suggested by the TPO, the same comparables continued to qualify, which has not been controverted by the Revenue. 49. We also find merit in the contention of the assessee that being a 100% export-oriented entity, appropriate export filter ought to have been applied. Inclusion of companies having predominantly domestic operations distorts comparability. Similarly, inclusion of companies having disproportionately high turnover, with scale advantages, brand value and diversified operations, cannot be regarded as comparable to a captive service provider with turnover of Rs. 66 crores. 50. It is also pertinent to note that even as per the TPO’s own observation, under TNMM, broad functional comparability is sufficient and exact similarity is not required. Once this principle is accepted, rejection of the assessee’s comparables, which broadly satisfy the functional criteria, without cogent reasoning, is contradictory.

36 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited 51. We further find that the DRP has merely affirmed the action of the TPO without dealing with the detailed objections raised by the assessee, particularly with regard to Functional dissimilarity, Export filter, Turnover disparity and Tabular comparison. Such non-speaking confirmation cannot be sustained. 52. The Ld. DR has placed reliance on clause (g) of Rule 10TA to contend that the services rendered by the assessee fall within the category of “knowledge process outsourcing services” on the ground that the said definition includes “human resources services”. 53. We have carefully considered the said contention.Rule 10TA(g) defines “knowledge process outsourcing services” as business process outsourcing services provided mainly with the assistance or use of information technology requiring application of knowledge and advanced analytical and technical skills, and thereafter illustratively includes certain services such as human resource services, engineering services, analytics, market research, etc. In our considered view, the emphasis in the said definition is not merely on the nomenclature of the service, but on the nature and complexity of the functions performed, particularly whether such services require application of advanced analytical and technical skills. 54. In the present case, on examination of the Master Service Agreement and the FAR analysis, it is evident that the assessee is engaged in routine Human Resource Management Consultancy

37 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited Services such as recruitment, staffing, training and compliance support. These activities are operational and execution-oriented in nature and do not involve any sophisticated analytical functions, proprietary tools, or specialized domain expertise of the kind envisaged in high-end KPO services. 55. The mere inclusion of “human resources services” within the illustrative list under Rule 10TA(g) cannot lead to a blanket characterization of all HR-related services as KPO. Such an interpretation would be contrary to the qualifying portion of the definition itself, which requires application of advanced analytical and technical skills. 56. Further, it is pertinent to note that Rule 10TA forms part of the safe harbour provisions and is primarily intended to define categories of services for the purpose of determining eligibility for safe harbour margins. The said definition cannot be applied in isolation to override the factual determination of functional profile under Rule 10B. 57. Thus, in the facts of the present case, we are unable to accept the contention of the Revenue that the assessee is engaged in high-end KPO services merely by virtue of Rule 10TA(g). The functional profile, supported by the cost-plus 5% remuneration model, clearly establishes that the assessee is a low-end, routine service provider, and not a knowledge-intensive service entity.

38 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited 58. Accordingly, the reliance placed by the Ld. DR on Rule 10TA(g) is found to be misplaced and does not advance the case of the Revenue. 59. In view of the above discussion, we hold as under: i. The assessee is a low-risk captive service provider rendering routine HR support services, as evidenced by the cost-plus 5% remuneration model. ii. The comparables selected by the assessee are based on proper FAR analysis and satisfy the test of broad comparability under TNMM. iii. The rejection of such comparables by the TPO is arbitrary and without cogent reasoning. iv. The comparables selected by the TPO are functionally dissimilar and engaged in high-end diversified services, and hence cannot be accepted. v. The approach of the TPO in repeatedly changing filters amounts to impermissible cherry picking. 60. Accordingly, we uphold the comparables selected by the assessee and hold that the international transactions are at arm’s length. The transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 6,99,33,200/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the DRP is hereby directed to be deleted. 61. Accordingly Ground Nos. 2 to 10 raised by the assessee are allowed. Ground No. 1 relates to the validity of the draft assessment order under section 144C(1). Since we have deleted

39 ITA No. 8350/Mum/2026 Go Global India Private Limited the transfer pricing adjustment on merits, the said ground is rendered academic and does not require adjudication.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 20/04/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai