“functional analysis”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C221 judgments

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

manner and for which the most reliable comparable can be found, i.e., it will most often be the one that has the less complex functional analysis A Tested party should have the following attributes on bases of these definitions: ● Available of reliable and accurate data for comparison, ● Least Complex (amongst ... uncontrolled comparables." 4.2. Based on the above, assessee submitted that with respect to the benchmarking of the export transaction, AEs possess the least complex functional analysis and hence, chosen AE as the tested party. For its above stand, assessee relied on the decision of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Addl

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. BP INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4907/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), P B No 19411, Mumbai Vs. Technopolis Knowledge Park, Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 276/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income P B No 19411, Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mumbai Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan & Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Cas Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit (A) 55, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1076574916(1), Dated 30/05/2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit - 9(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(3)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.04.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan and Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

assessee. Before we delve into the exclusion and inclusion of 2 comparables as contested by the Revenue, we first look at the functional analysis to understand the functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed by the assessee as contained in its TPSR forming part of the paper book. 4.1. From

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

ITA 2533/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

OECD recognised\nmethods; the appropriateness of the method considered in view of\nthe nature of the controlled transaction, determined in particular\nthrough a functional analysis; the availability of reliable\ninformation (in particular on uncontrolled comparables) needed to\napply the selected method and/or other methods; and the degree\nof comparability between

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2047/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

analysis, it is sine qua non to understand the functions performed, assets owned and risk assumed by the assessee under both the segments. “4 Functional Analysis 4.1 Functions performed FTIS undertakes back office transaction processing, data processing, business support services and software development services for overseas FTI Group entities. These

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. DNJ CREATION LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed

ITA 4329/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 92C

also find merit in the submission of ld A.R. of the assessee that it is a settled position in transfer pricing regulations that a functional analysis is the primary determination for identifying the least complex entity. The tested party must be participant whose assets employed, risk assumed and the functions

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7912/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nMr. Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: \nMr. Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80Section 91Section 92Section 92A(3)

{"clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)\nAND

HONDA TRADING CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DC/ACIT, CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI / ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5286/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 92C

facts and in law by accepting functionally dis-similar companies i.e. Durga Automotives Pvt. Ltd., as comparable to Appellant and failed to undertake appropriate functional analysis of comparables vis-à-vis Appellant: 9. The Ld. TPO / AO grossly erred by considering following inappropriate filters, for the purpose

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. AMAZON DEVELOPEMENT CENTRE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 2127/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao &For Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT-DR

Section 250

support centre provides services for the Global Accounts Payable ("AP") function of Amazon Group Companies by providing invoice-processing services.” Based on the above functional analysis, assets employed and risk assumed the assessee is characterised as a routine/captive service provider that assumes lower than the normal risks associated with

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), , BANGALORE vs. AMAZON DEVELOPEMENT CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 2036/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao &For Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT-DR

Section 250

MARKS AND SPENCER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1937/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

this regard, reference may be made to the relevant para of the TP Report as hereunder (Para 4.3.1 on page 49-50): 4.3.1 Functional analysis A functional analysis facilitates the characterisation of the transactions between AEs after taking into account their functions, assets and risks and assists in establishing

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. BP INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are

ITA 4873/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.535, Aayakar Bhavan, Pb No. 19411, Technopolis Vs. Mumbai – 400020. Knowledge Park, Andheri, Mumbai- 400043. Pan No. – Aaccb2020Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 277/M/2025 In Ita No.4873/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah/ Mr. AmolFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR. D.R.)

Section 234DSection 271(1)(c)

Assessee’s own case. There is no change in the financial and functions of this comparable in the year under consideration as well. The functional analysis of Jindal Intellicom Ltd. is filed at page No.221 of paper book. Segmental information of this comparable is available at page

SPECTRIS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose with above observations

ITA 3563/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Spectris Technologies Pvt. Vs. Acit Ltd., 201-B, Second Floor, New Delhi Park Centra, Sector -30 Gurgaon Pan No. Aagcs6654R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Priya Goel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 Order Per C.N. Prasad, Jm, This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -20, New Delhi Vide Order Dated 27.03.2014 For The A.Y. 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds :- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xx, New Delhi ("Cit(A)") Is Bad In Law.

Section 234BSection 92Section 92C

wherein the customer has taken AMC from Spectris India and spare part required to be replaced is covered under AMC." 7.1.2 From the above functional analysis, and the analysis made in the show cause notice issued to the assessee quoted above, it is more than apparent that the AMC services ... services, agency support services, after sales support services and purchase and sale of spare parts. Also, delivery of AMC services is mentioned under the functional analysis for international transaction relating to 'purchase of spare parts for normal business’. 7.1.3 Assets utilized Spectris India deploys the necessary assets for performing

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4733/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 270ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

mark-ups is explained in the ensuing paragraphs.\nSelection of tested party\nThe choice of the tested party should be consistent with the functional analysis of the transaction. As\na general rule, the tested party is the one to which a transfer pricing method can be applied in the most ... manner and for which the most reliable comparables can be found i.e. it will most often be\nthe one that has the less complex functional analysis 26.\nThe tested party is the participant in the controlled transaction whose profit attributable to the\ncontrolled transaction can be verified using the most

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

with respect to existence of PE (once established), the attribution of the profit to the PE liable to tax in India, is based on functional analysis, having regard to the functions performed, assets used or risks assumed by the PE. In this regard, it is submitted that even

LINTAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5889/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Lintas India Private Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department Or A Wing, 16Th Floor, Deputy Commissioner Of Parinee Crescenzo, Income Tax, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Circle 16(1), Bandra (East), 1) National Faceless Mumbai – 400 051 Assessment Centre (Nafac), Vs. Pan: Aaacl0124F Delhi 2)Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain, Ld. A.R. Shri Karnik Kansara, Ld. A.R Ms. Neha Rai, Ld. A.R. Ms. Sakshi Chimanani, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.05.2023, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Dispute Resolution Panel-1) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2021-22. 2 M/S. Lintas India Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

Region, North America, and Asia Pacific Region. No data is provided with regard to the accepted matrix, type and number filters used and qualitative functional analysis of the comparables. Most importantly, the audited financial of the comparable is not provided for an authenticity and verification of margin. In view

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4828/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nMS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 270ASection 40Section 92C

Charges are made on an identical basis to related and\nnon related members of consortium (similar to exact CUP),\n(2)A functional analysis reveals that the entrepreneurial risk\nis totally absent for the service companies concerned, all\ncosts are charged to the users, a profit and loss ... Charges are made on an identical basis to related and\nnon related members of consortium (similar to exact CUP),\n(2)A functional analysis reveals that the entrepreneurial risk\nis totally absent for the service companies concerned, all\ncosts are charged to the users, a profit and loss

APPLEXUS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

ITA 955/COCH/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

For Appellant: Shri Reuben JosephFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

REMARKS: 10.1 The objections of the Taxpayer to the comparables selected by the TPO and their disposal by the TPO along with functional analysis of the comparables is given in the following table: Taxpayer's objection: Segmented PLI should be calculated 11 Assessment Year 2021-2022 TPO's comment

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 433/DEL/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

adjustments have been made, all things get taken into account and stand reconciled when computing the net profit margin. Once the comparables pass the functional analysis test and adjustments have been made, then the profit margin as declared when matches with the comparables would result in affirmation of the transfer ... complex entities or where one of the entities is not ‗plain vanilla distributor', it should be applied when necessary and applicable comparables on functional analysis, with or without adjustments are available. Otherwise, the TNM Method should not be adopted or applied on account of being an inappropriate method. XXXXX

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 430/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

Showing 1–20 of 221 · Page 1 of 12

...