DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd.

38 SOT 307Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#540 most cited

What is DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. authority for?

An assessee is not estopped or precluded from seeking the exclusion of a company from its Transfer Pricing study comparables, even if initially selected, if it can demonstrate valid reasons for non-comparability.

179

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. · Section 92CA(3) · Section 92C(2) · Section 92D · Transfer Pricing comparables · exclusion of comparable companies · assessee not estopped · TP study comparable selection · benchmarking analysis · functional analysis

Also reported as

132 TTJ 14 ITR (Trib) 606

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 92CA(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271AA

Issues it is cited on

contemporaneous datamultiple year datacaptive service providerfunctional analysissection 92c(2)working capital adjustmentfar analysissection 92drelated party transactioncomparable companiestested partybenchmarking analysis

Judgments citing DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd.

Star Internaitonal Movies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (It) 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership V. Scindia House, C/O Star India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaefc6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri. Pavan K Beerla (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 92C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “K” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership v. Scindia House, C/o STAR India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN :AAEFC6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ स…

Channel Music Networks Ltd Partnership, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1519/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership V. Scindia House, C/O Star India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaefc6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri. Pavan K Beerla (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 92C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “K” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership v. Scindia House, C/o STAR India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN :AAEFC6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ स…

Almatis Alumina Private Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 726/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)Section 92CSection 92E

…ich is due to some information coming to the knowledge of the assessee tax payer which reflects facts contrary to the facts captured in the TP study. In this context, we rely on the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. ([2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD)) wherein it was held as follows: '37 When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. For the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done due to some mistakes on its part. Accordingly, on facts and circumstances of the ca…

Almatis Alumina Private Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

In the result, boththe appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2361/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.726&2361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)Section 92CSection 92E

…ich is due to some information coming to the knowledge of the assessee tax payer which reflects facts contrary to the facts captured in the TP study. In this context, we rely on the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. ([2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD)) wherein it was held as follows: '37 When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. For the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done due to some mistakes on its part. Accordingly, on facts and circumstances of the ca…

Giesecke & Devrient (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2544/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)

…said comparable was never objected to before the lower authorities and is being contested for the first time before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 41. The Appellant would like to place reliance on the Special Bench decision in the case of DCIT v Quark Systems [2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD)(SB) which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide reported as [2011] 244 CTR 542 wherein it has been held that there is no estoppel in law against the Assessee agitating its own comparables. This view now has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd. [2017] 298 C…

M/S. Eaton Technologies Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 400/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Pune06 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra
Section 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

…ngaged into financial consultancy. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that inclusion / exclusion of a concern can be raised at any stage as held by Special Bench of Chandigarh Tribunal in DCIT Vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 307 (CHD) (SB), which has been approved by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CIT Vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 244 CTR 542 (P&H). The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further placed reliance on the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Dover India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra), wherein the said concern was excluded bei…

Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1650/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1650/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Midc, Kharadi Knowledge Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kharadi, Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce4323Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ngaged into financial consultancy. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that inclusion / exclusion of a concern can be raised at any stage as held by Special Bench of Chandigarh Tribunal in DCIT Vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 307 (CHD) (SB), which has been approved by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CIT Vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 244 CTR 542 (P&H). The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further placed reliance on the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Dover India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra), wherein the said concern was excluded bei…

Giesecke & Devrient India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5924/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…hat of the assessee and, thus, is not a suitable comparable in terms of Rule 10B (1)(e) read with Rule 10B(2)/(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. By relying on the decision of the Special Bench in the case of DCIT v Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD)(SB) [which now stands confirmed by the 36 Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in [2011] 244 CTR 542] he argued that there is no estoppel against law and the assessee can agitate its own comparables. He submitted that recently the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd. reported in [2017] 29…

Pr. Commissioner of vs. M/S Pmc Sierra India Pvt Ltd

ITA/405/2017HC Karnataka21 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 260Section 260A

…assessee cannot be precluded from raising an objection against these companies which are found to be not comparable. This view is supported by the decision of the Chandigarh Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 307 in paras 30 and 38 as under : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thus in view of the matter that the functional comparability has already been examined by this Tribunal, we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding functional comparability of E-Zest Solutions Ltd. for deciding the same on merits. 14. We have considered…

Pr. Commissioner of vs. M/S Pmc Sierra India Pvt Ltd

ITA/404/2017HC Karnataka21 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 260Section 260A

…assessee cannot be precluded from raising an objection against these companies which are found to be not comparable. This view is supported by the decision of the Chandigarh Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 307 in paras 30 and 38 as under : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thus in view of the matter that the functional comparability has already been examined by this Tribunal, we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding functional comparability of E-Zest Solutions Ltd. for deciding the same on merits. 14. We have considered…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Electronics for Imaging India Pvt Ltd

ITA/94/2017HC Karnataka02 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…seeking to exclude the same from the list of comparables and in this regard has raised additional ground of appeal before us. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Special Bench ITAT in the case of Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd., [2010] 38 SOT 307 [Chd.] [SB] for the proposition that there cannot be estoppel in Transfer Pricing issues and an Assessee can take a stand that a company chosen by it as comparable is in fact not comparable. Keeping in mind the decision of the Special Bench referred to above, we admit the additional ground for adjudication. 13. As far as the 8 comparable…

The Pr Commissioner vs. M/S Electronics

ITA/95/2017HC Karnataka02 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…seeking to exclude the same from the list of comparables and in this regard has raised additional ground of appeal before us. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Special Bench ITAT in the case of Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd., [2010] 38 SOT 307 [Chd.] [SB] for the proposition that there cannot be estoppel in Transfer Pricing issues and an Assessee can take a stand that a company chosen by it as comparable is in fact not comparable. Keeping in mind the decision of the Special Bench referred to above, we admit the additional ground for adjudication. 13. As far as the 8 comparable…

Bothra Shipping Services(Currently Known As Bothra Shipping Services (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result ground no. 11 & 12 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 178/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bothra Shipping Services ......…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant (Currently Known As Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 10 2Nd Floor “Sagar Estate 2 Clive Ghat Street Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aadfb 8479 P] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Naresh Jain & Mrs. Arati Debnath, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31St , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’). As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 2. Brief Facts Of This Case Are Brought Out By The Ld. Drp At Page 1 Of His Order Which Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- Bothra India Is Engaged In The Business Of Handling Bulk Cargoes. Its Activities Include Vessel Handling, Stevedoring & Cargo Handling, Clearing & Forwarding & Other Port Related Activities. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd ('Jaldhi Overseas') Engages Bothra India For Vessel Handling At The Port, To Provide Various Vessel Related Services Until The Vessel

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

…picked up by the assessee himself and hence he cannot plead for exclusion of this comparable. In reply the ld. Counsel for the assesee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Chandigarh ITAT, Special Bench in the case of Quark Systems Private Limited v. DCIT: 2010 38 SOT 307, for the proposition that even if the assessee had itself included a comparable in its TP Study, there is no bar to plead exclusion of the same before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 8.1. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has approved the following findings of th…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Lsi Technologies India

ITA/506/2016HC Karnataka30 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260Section 260A

…1/9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JULY 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.506/2016 BETWEEN: 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-11(2), BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (By Mr.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S. LSI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY PARK, BLOCK C, MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560103. …RESPONDENT…

Dialogic Networks (I) P.Ld, Pune vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 7280/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Miss Bhavya BansalFor Respondent: Shri V Jenardhanan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

…nst inclusion and exclusion of the aforesaid 3 companies at the CIT(A) stage. With regard to the inclusion of the 2 comparables the issue was decided in favour the assessee by the ITAT by referring to a special bench decision in the case of Quark Systems Ltd (132 TTJ 1 SB) -Para 9 "in this view of the matter and having regard to the entirety of the case we approve the stand of the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter." With regard to this issue of rejection of one comparable as accepted by the TPO the ITAT noted "During the course of hearing the assessee was asked to demonstrate that this kind of an anal…

Accenture Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7686/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwallaa/wFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…behalf of the Revenue by stating that the learned Departmental Representative could not improve the order of the TPO, the learned Departmental Representative pressed into service the Special Bench order in the case of Dy. CIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 307/4 ITR (Trib.) 606 (Chd.) (SB)]. 41. Primarily we need to decide as to whether the learned Departmental Representative, while arguing the appeal, can validly improve the order of the AO/TPO by contending that the assessing authority was wrong in accepting a particular claim of the assessee. In the case of Quark Systems (P.) Ltd.(supra) the assesse…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Analog Devices India Pvt Ltd

ITA/454/2015HC Karnataka18 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 10BSection 133(6)Section 260

…was submitted that significant differences in size of the companies would impart comparability. In this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd., 38 SOT 207, wherein the Special Bench had laid down that it is improper to proceed on the basis of lower limit of 1 crore turnover with no higher limit on turnover, as the same was not reasonable classification. Several other decisions were referred to in this regard laying down identical proposition. We are not referring to those decisions as the…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Wittness System

ITA/347/2013HC Karnataka11 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 260

…was submitted that significant differences in size of the companies would impact comparability. In this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd. 38 SOT 207, wherein the Special Bench had laid down that it is improper to proceed on the basis of lower limit of 1 crore turnover with no higher limit on Date of Judgment 11-07-2018, ITA No.347/2013 Commissioner Of Income Tax-III & another Vs. Wittness System Software India Private Ltd. 10/38 turnover, as the same was not reasonable…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Trilogy E-Business

ITA/171/2013HC Karnataka10 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…e. It was submitted that significant differences in size of the companies would impact comparability. In this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT v. Quark Systems Pvt. Ltd., 38 SOT 207, Date of Judgment 10-07-2018, ITA No.171/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax-III & Another Vs. M/s. Trilogy E-Business Software India Private Ltd., 6/14 wherein the Special Bench had laid down that it is improper to proceed on the basis of lower limit of 1 crore turnover with no higher limit on turnover, as the same was not reaso…

Faurecia Interior Systems India P. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 781/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 92C(2)

…llant can submit for acceptance/ rejection of additional companies as comparable even before the Appellate Authorities. In this regard, the Appellant would like to rely upon following rulings of the Hon'ble ITAT: 1. DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Limited - [2010] 38 SOT 307 (CHD.)(SB) 2. Barclays Technology Centre India Private Limited - Thus, it is the case of the assessee before us that it is legally a settled issue that selection/rejection of comparables is allowed even before the Appellate bodies, leave alone before the TPO/AO. Assessee relied on certain decisions (supra) in support of the same. 11. We heard b…