NIELSEN (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(1), MUMBAI

The assessee has raised the following grounds in these appeals.

2 The learned AO/ CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the existence of a inter group agreement, cost allocation report and maintenance of a contemporaneous documentation provide good supporting to demonstrate arm's length nature of the service charges.

3 The learned AO/ CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that the appellant has maintained all relevant documents, correspondence, back-up calculations including invoices/ debit notes to demonstrate that services were actually received and scientific allocation keys were used.

4 The learned AO/ CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Service charges do not include any costs towards "Stewardship" or "Shareholder" activity.

5 The learned AO/ CIT(A) failed to appreciate the documents submitted by appellant evidencing the rendering of services by AE.

6 The learned AO/ CIT(A) ought to have accepted the Benchmarking exercise conducted by the appellant, appellant, using Transaction Net Margin Method ("TNMM') 1.6 as the most appropriate method.

8 The learned AO/ CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Provision of BPO Services by Appellant are adequately remunerated and hence the adjustment needs to be deleted.

9. The leamed AO/CIT(A) ought to have considered the scientific benchmarking analysis of the appellant, using internal TNMM

10 The learned AO/ CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant's functional profile is of low risk service provider and not a high risk service provider.

11 The learned AO/ CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that transfer pricing is an anti-avoidance provision and in the present case both EUREKA and RRC divisions are registered STPI units and there is no intention of appellant to shift the profits.

13 The learned AO/ CIT(A) should have considered the multiple year data of the comparable.

14 The learned AO's/ CIT(A)'s approach of allocating cost based on revenue is not justified.

15 The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the additional external benchmarking submitted by the assessee during the course of the hearing. The learned CIT(A) also erred in not providing adequate reasoning for not considering the external benchmarking conducted by the assessee.

Direct Tax Payment to Employees State Insurance Corporation of Rs. 5,507,803 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the learned assessing officer (learned AO) with respect to the contribution made towards Employees State General Insurance Corporation (ESIC) amounting to Rs. 5,507,803 under section 43B of the Act.

2 Further, the learned CIT(A) erred in observing that the facts of the appellant's case for the year under consideration are similar to the facts of the appellant's own case for AY 2008-09. Interest on TDS of Rs. 57,776 2.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the learned AO on account of interest on TDS of Rs. 57,776 under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act

General 3.1. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to one another.

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal.”

At the outset, Ld. AR informed that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (DTVSVS). Vide letter dated 03.03.2025, the assessee has placed on record, copies of declaration filed in Form 1 and Form 2 received from the income tax department. The assessee, therefore, seeks to withdraw the present appeal.

In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.