← All Phrases

“FAR analysis”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C371 judgments

The decision most relied on for FAR analysis is UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT (121 ITD 131), cited in 70 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on FAR analysis

UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT
121 ITD 131 · 2009 · ITAT
70
citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, distinct international transactions, such as royalty payments and manufacturing, should be benchmarked separately rather than aggregated. The selection of comparables must be based on a thorough Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR) analysis, and loss-making entities are not automatically excluded if they satisfy other comparability criteria.

Genesis Integrating Systems India Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT
53 SOT 159 · 2012 · ITAT
57
citing judgments

Companies with significantly different turnovers (e.g., one above Rs. 200 crores and another below) cannot be considered comparable in transfer pricing analysis. Turnover is a relevant factor in assessing comparability.

DCIT v. Electronics for Imaging India P. Ltd.
70 Taxmann.com 299 · 2016 · ITAT
51
citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, companies engaged in functionally different activities, such as payroll processing versus software development, are not comparable and must be excluded from the list of comparables.

Dy. DIT (IT) v. Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
106 ITD 175 · 2007 · ITAT
50
citing judgments

For computing profits of a dependent agency permanent establishment (DAPE), the 'two taxpayer approach' is upheld. A hypothetical DAPE is visualized based on the General Enterprise's functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed, given the absence of a physical establishment.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merck Ltd.
389 ITR 70 · 2016 · High Court
48
citing judgments

Ad-hoc transfer pricing adjustments are not justified if the Transfer Pricing Officer fails to apply one of the prescribed methods under Section 92C. The arm's length nature of international transactions, including intra-group services and management fees, should be determined through a detailed FAR analysis and benchmarking study.

Chryscapital Investment Advisors India Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT
82 Taxmann.com 167 · 2017 · High Court
38
citing judgments

A company that is otherwise comparable on a functional and comparability analysis (FAR analysis) cannot be excluded solely based on high turnover; the effect of such high turnover on the margin must be considered.

SwissRe Global Business Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
116 Taxmann.com 716 · 2020 · Reported
13
citing judgments

Working capital adjustment is an accepted adjustment provided for better comparability in transfer pricing. The Tribunal has held that working capital adjustment is necessary for better comparability.

Judgments citing FAR analysis

ACIT -3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

differential between the assessee and the AEs at 50:50 in an ad hoc unscientific manner, instead of dividing it on the basis of FAR analysis between the assessee and the AEs? (Included in 7) 11.12 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not passing a speaking order on the FAR analysis carried out by the TPO for attributing the interest differential in a more conservative manner at 60:40 ratio and simply accepting the assessee

Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-5, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 342/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.342/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Ocwen Financial Solutions The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax V. Pritech Park, Survey No.51 To Special Range – 5 64/4, Block No.12, Unit 2, 5B & Bangalore. 6A Floors, Bellandur Village, Sarjapur Marathahalli Ring Road Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaaco3764E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, Advocates Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Providing It Enabled Services To Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. Usvi. The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Ocwen Asia Holdings Limited, Mauritius. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 29.11.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.93,31,44,800. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

comparable company, since according to the TPO, for the said assessment year the company has passed all the TPO’s filter and the FAR analysis are similar. 15. In view of the order of the TPO for assessment year 2015-2016, we restore the comparability of Ace BPO Services Private

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Astrazenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

detailed in TP study of assessee, which is placed on record at page 338 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The FAR analysis is also placed on record at page 347 to 350 of the paper book-I filed by the assessee. The list of comparable finally selected

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

detailed in TP study of assessee, which is placed on record at page 338 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The FAR analysis is also placed on record at page 347 to 350 of the paper book-I filed by the assessee. The list of comparable finally selected

Softlayer Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 265/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

good comparable because of its turnover is more than 200.00/- crores even they are passing the filter supplied by the TPO and passes the FAR analysis, the name of the companies are as under:- 8.1 Considering the entire arguments and case law cited by the AR of the assessee ... wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which

Ge Be Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 304/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.304/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Ge Be Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 3(1)(1), 60, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Bengaluru. Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacg 6714 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 212/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sri.P.C.Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92C

comparable company, since according to the TPO, for the said assessment year the company has passed all the TPO’s filter and the FAR analysis are similar. 33 IT(TP)A No.212/Bang/2021. M/s.Global E-Business Operations Pvt.Ltd. 15. In view of the order of the TPO for assessment year

Continuserve Softech India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.242/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Continuserve Softech India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Prathik Tech Park, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Bengaluru. Sy. No.93/1, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Hosur Road, Electronic City Phase 1, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaacc 8342 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company which

Etisalat Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 240/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92D

supra), the AO/TPO is directed to examine this company by examining the correctness of collation of financial data and also by undertaking FAR analysis. Accordingly we restore this company to the file of AO/TPO for examining the same.” 31. The assessee has now submitted additional evidence which goes

Motorola Mobility India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

obliged to incur AMP expenditure for the purpose of promoting brand, intangible to its AE. Similarly the assessee- company also has not furnished FAR analysis of AMP functions in its TP study. In our considered opinion, the matter requires remission to the TPO for undertaking fresh analysis to establish existence

Metric Stream Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that

Hsbc Professional Services (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

ITA 8823/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

FAR) by M/s HSBC Professional Services Pvt. Ltd. Professional Services Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 8753 & 8823/M/2011 the assessee are to be compared with the FAR analysis of the the assessee are to be compared with the FAR analysis of the the assessee are to be compared with the FAR analysis ... before we embark upon Therefore, before we embark upon adjudication of exclusion/inclusion exclusion/inclusion of comparables, it is necessary , it is necessary to refer the FAR analysis of the assessee comp to refer the FAR analysis of the assessee company, available on page any, available on page

DCIT RG 8(2) (OSD), Mumbai vs. Hsbc Professional Services (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 8753/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

FAR) by M/s HSBC Professional Services Pvt. Ltd. Professional Services Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 8753 & 8823/M/2011 the assessee are to be compared with the FAR analysis of the the assessee are to be compared with the FAR analysis of the the assessee are to be compared with the FAR analysis ... before we embark upon Therefore, before we embark upon adjudication of exclusion/inclusion exclusion/inclusion of comparables, it is necessary , it is necessary to refer the FAR analysis of the assessee comp to refer the FAR analysis of the assessee company, available on page any, available on page

Mfe Formwork Technology Sdn Bhd, Mumbai vs. The CIT (Intl Tax), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 890/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

that for the purpose of determining the profits attributable to tax in India, the Assessee Company had attributed 24% of Gross Profits based on FAR Analysis carried out. The AR explained the basis of Computation as under: Step Particulars Basis Amt (Rs) 1 Sales made in India Sales made ... Gross Profits. The rate 9,27,20,736 Indian Operations of 24% has been determined on the basis of a detailed FAR analysis based on Function Performed, Asset Deployed & Risks Assumed by each party. 5 Less: Marketing Fee paid to As per the Marketing Service 9,05,21,260 agent

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 203/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nike India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ground & First Floor, Olympia Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Building, No.66/1, Begmane Tech Park, C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn9612K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholesale Distributor Of Nike Brand Products In India. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2016 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.164,42,63,191. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The 2 It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021. M/S.Nike India Private Limited. Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associate Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 31.10.2019, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Tp Adjustment Totaling To Rs.63,27,41,494 Under Various Segments. The Details Of The Same Are As Follows:- Segment Adjustment (Rs.) Issue Of Sourcing Commission 30,57,35,722 Reimbursement Of Expenses 17,77,95,683 Third Party Royalty 2,00,08,967 Amp Expenses 12,92,01,122 Total 63,27,41,494

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

borne by the assessee. 5.5.5 As regards the expenses related to employees, of the parent company who have been deputed to the assessee, the FAR analysis in the Transfer Pricing Study/Report related to the employees states as under: Risk Category and Exposure to NIKE Exposure to Description India NIKE Group

Macquare Capital Securities India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue ITA no-

ITA 5709/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms Jasmin AmasadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Sauel Pitta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

done between like companies and controlled and un-controlled transactions. The comparison has to be done between like companies and requires carrying out of FAR analysis to find the same. Moreover, the Assessee's submission in arriving at the ALP is not final. It is for the TPO to examine ... find out the companies listed as comparables which are, in fact comparable. The impugned order has on FAR analysis found 12 ITA.No.5636 & 5709/Mum/2014 Macquarie Capital India P. Ltd. thatM/s. Indowind Energy Ltd. andB.F. Utilities Ltd. are not comparable. They are in a different area i.e., wind energy while

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Macquarie Capital India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue ITA no-

ITA 5636/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms Jasmin AmasadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Sauel Pitta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

done between like companies and controlled and un-controlled transactions. The comparison has to be done between like companies and requires carrying out of FAR analysis to find the same. Moreover, the Assessee's submission in arriving at the ALP is not final. It is for the TPO to examine ... find out the companies listed as comparables which are, in fact comparable. The impugned order has on FAR analysis found 12 ITA.No.5636 & 5709/Mum/2014 Macquarie Capital India P. Ltd. thatM/s. Indowind Energy Ltd. andB.F. Utilities Ltd. are not comparable. They are in a different area i.e., wind energy while

M/S Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 181/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., No. 10 Brindavan, The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Yashoda Nagar Main Income Tax, Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Jakkur Plantation, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan: Aaacq0656P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahaveer C Jain, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 25/01/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer C Jain, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

Trib), wherein it was held that high turnover ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company which is otherwise comparable on FAR analysis can be excluded and that the effect of such high turnover on the margin should be seen. The DRP therefore held that a company ... Tribunal in various cases shall be kept in mind while considering the comparability of all these with that of assessee, having regards to the FAR analysis. Accordingly Ground no. 2 raised by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Ground nos. 7-9 is in respect of Working Capital

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3033/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 10ASection 250Section 2D

using and the learned CIT(A) red in upholding the application of a standard benchmarking set without conducting a Function Assets and Risk Analysis (“FAR Analysis") of the same in order to prove its applicability to the case by specious comparison of the international transaction of availing of service with ... objective of making an adjust to the income of the appellant. 1.3.3 Incorrect selection of comparables by the learned TPO by not considering the FAR analysis pertaining to the international transaction under consideration. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the leased TPO earned

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144(3)Section 92C

borne by the assessee. 5.5.5 As regards the expenses related to employees, of the parent company who have been deputed to the assessee, the FAR analysis in the Transfer Pricing Study/Report related to the employees states as under: Risk Category and Exposure to NIKE Exposure to NIKE Description India Group