“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India Medtronic Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10 (1)91), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.54 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7935/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7935/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) India Medtronic Private Limited, 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Bldg.No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan:Aaaci-4227-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room No.209, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A With Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Kamath, Cit-Dr With S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A with Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamath, CIT-DR with S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani

Section 143(3)

section 92B or 92B(1)of the Act and hence is not an IT.Once it goes out of the ambit of being an IT,FAR analysis of comparables or any other adjustment will and cannot come in picture.Folk wisdom of rural India the says that mother(Maa)is must

Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1777/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 10ASection 250

comparables for benchmarking analysis for determining the Arm's Length Price in respect of international transactions with AEs without doing any FAR analysis for excluding the said comparable." 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred allowing the benefit

Dy.CIT-8(3), Mumbai vs. Sitel India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1426/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 10ASection 250

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

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

ITA 206/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 206/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Epson India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 12Th Floor, The Milenia, Commissioner Of Tower A, Income Tax, No. 1,Murphy Road, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ulsoor, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 008. Pan: Aaace7858F Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Orders Passed By Learned Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income- Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred As "Ao" For Brevity), Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tp) — 1(2)(1), Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred As "Tpo" For Brevity) & The Honourable Drp-1

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha

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

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 5025/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1999-2000

Section 143(3)

which is on the basis of revenues of the activities of the GE attributable to the PE, in turn based on the FAR analysis of the DAPE, minus the payments attributable in respect of such activities. In simple words, whatever are the revenues generated on account of functional analysis ... examined. It was examined but the Assessing Officer did not find specific fault in the agent's remuneration not being in accordance with the FAR analysis. He has rather proceeded to, in a way, disregard the foreign entity altogether by suggesting that no business risk is assumed by the foreign

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 5024/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1998-1999

Section 143(3)

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 4997/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1999-2000

Section 143(3)

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) RG. 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 4996/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1998-1999

Section 143(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Altisource Business Solutions India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 164/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 162/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pritech Park, 3Rd & 5Th Floors Of Wing A & The Deputy 4Th Floor Of Wing B, Commissioner Of Block No. 12, Pritech Park, Income Tax, Survey No. 51-64/4, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Vs. Sarjapur Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaaco9467A Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 164/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 (By Revenue) : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Susan Dolores George Revenue By Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 30-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against Order Dated 31.08.2017 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 92C(3)(a)

understand the functions performed, assets owned and risks assumed by assessee under the segment. 9.1 The Ld.CIT(A) in his order considered the FAR analysis as under: “The Appellant wishes to submit that a detailed TP Report as required under Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules ... filed before the learned transfer pricing officer ("TP0") 16 April 2015. Functional Assets and Risks ("FAR") profile of the Appellant Based on the FAR analysis provided in the TP Report, it is evident that the Appellant operates as a services provider to its AEs assuming low risks relating to carrying

Clsa India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2385/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Clsa India Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 4(1), 8/F Dalamal House, Room No.640, Aayakar Nariman Point, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai–400 021 Mumbai–400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc2262K Assessee By : S/Shri Mukesh Butani, Ms. Karishma R. Phatarphekar, Mr. Harsh R Shah, Shreyash Shah Revenue By : Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Mukesh ButaniFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

appeal, 2, 3, and 4 the appellant has contended that the AO was not justified in rejecting the TNMM. The appellant submitted the FAR analysis to strengthen its argument that the cup method could not have been the most appropriate 2385/Mum/2014 ITA no. CLSA India Ltd; A.Y. 2008–09 method ... forums and applications software development and IT support are performed by the AEs for non-AE Fll clients of the assessee. (C) The detailed FAR analysis submitted by the assessee highlights the key differences between transactions executed for its AE and non-AE clients and establishes that

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

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

ITA 252/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.252/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mindteck India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A.M.R. Tech Park, Block 1, 3Rd Floor, Circle – 4(1)(1), No.664, 23/24, Hosur Main Road, Begur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 068. Pan : Aaach 1072 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

ipso facto does not lead to the conclusion that a company IT(TP)A No.252/Bang/2021 Page 10 of 33 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 ... ACIT ITA no.2347/Bang/2019 dated 24.04.2020 wherein comparability of this company was set aside to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration in the light of the FAR analysis of this company. Following the aforesaid decision, we set aside the issue of comparability of this company to the TPO for fresh consideration

Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd.[As A Successor to Positive Packaging Industries Ltd], Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 14 (2)91), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8042/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

relevant only when CUP is adopted as MAM. They are certainly not relevant when TNMM is adopted as MAM. Moreover, with regard to the FAR analysis between AE and non-AE, we find that there is absolutely no difference with Functions performed or Assets employed. With regard to the Risks

Hydac(India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 6634/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

learned AR submitted that the said company is not comparable with the assessee company at all, in view of major difference in the FAR analysis. The Learned AR tabulated difference between the assessee company and Asco (India) Ltd. as under: Sr.No. Hydac ASCO 1. Assembler - (TPO's order- Full-fledged

M/S. Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly Known As the Himalaya Drug Company), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 259/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT -DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(11)Section 92C

normal AMP expenditure by dividing the advertisement and selling expenses of the comparable enterprises by the turnover of those companies without making an FAR analysis and without making any suitable adjustment for various qualitative and quantitative differences. 10.11 Without prejudice to the above, the Hon’ble DRP is not justified

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 260/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.260/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Enstage Software Private Limited, Dcit (Exemptions), Vs. 16/1, Wings, 2Nd Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Cambridge Road, Halsuru, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aaace 9963 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C

appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of the AO passed pursuant to the directions of the DRP. TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT 4. The FAR analysis of the assessee as per the TPO’s order reads as under 2.1. Enstage Software Private Limited is a private limited company registered under ... Credit & Collection risk NO YES Technology obsolescence risk NO YES Foreign exchange fluctuation risk YES No Working Capital Risk NO. YES The FAR analysis serves as a foundation to characterize entities for the purpose of intercompany transfer pricing. Based on the analysis of the functions performed, assets employed and risks

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 188/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli , CIT (DR)

Section 92C

above 10. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP has erred in not appreciating the fact that Appellant's Functions, Assets and Risk ('FAR') analysis only revolves around the manufacturing process without any contribution to ownership of unique intangibles, thus leading to incorrect application of PSM. Incorrect application ... erred in assigning arbitrary weights to the functions performed by the Appellant vis-à-vis the Associated Enterprises without carrying out a detailed FAR analysis. 16. Further, the learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in applying a 50:50 profit split without giving any logical reasoning for arriving

Corp Attire, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2019-20

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

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Usa vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 863/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

attributing 100 percent of the gross revenue from sale of Novell Software Products to such alleged DAPE without appreciating the Functions, Assets and 'Risks ('FAR) analysis including the Resale Price Method adopted by the Appellant. 4. Without Prejudice to the Ground No.1 to Ground No. 3, on the facts ... taxability of which is on the basis of revenues of the activities of the GE attributable to the PE, in turn based on the FAR analysis of the DAPE, minus the payments attributable in respect of such activities. In simple words, whatever are the revenues generated on account of functional

Galax E Solutions India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 389/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.389/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Galax E Solutions India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Unit No.4, 8Th Floor, Innovator Block, Itpl, Circle -3(1)(1), Bangalore, Whitefield Road, Bangalore 560 066. Pan : Aabcg 9007 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. C. J. Brito, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit, Dr. Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.5.2021 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2016-2017. 2. The First Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is With Regard To The Correctness Of Determination Of Arm’S Length Price In Respect Of An International Transaction U/S.92 Of The Act. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Swd Services), To It’S Wholly Owned Subsidiary Company In Usa. In Terms Of The Provisions

For Appellant: Shri. C. J. Brito, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT, DR

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

M/S. Ge Be Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2615/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 92D

which are also into engineering design services and we have remanded those comparables to the Ld.TPO to consider it afresh in the light of FAR analysis in accordance with law. 14.2. We remand these comparables also back to Ld.TPO to readjudicate in it based on FAR analysis ... shall consider all the objections raised by assessee in respect of these comparables in the light of far analysis and to consider IT(TP)A No.2615/Bang/2019 M/s. GE BE Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 8 of 24 the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being