← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Symbol Technologies India Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee and that by the Revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2221/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
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 CIT(A) therefore held that ITA Nos.2057

M/S. Symbol Technologies India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee and that by the Revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2057/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
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 CIT(A) therefore held that ITA Nos.2057

Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd. As Successor of Rohm and Haas (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7936/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dow Chemical International Private Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Limited As Successor Of Rohm & Hass Room No. 458, 4Th Floor, (India) Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Godrej It Park-P2, 1St Floor Block B, 02, Mumbai-400020. Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan No. Aaacr 2855 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan R. Vora/For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 92C

only one comparable cannot be adopted for delermining arm's length Price. The final set of comparable have been selected carefully having regard to FAR analysis of the assessee. The panel is in agreement with the methodology followed by the TPO and the same is upheld and the ground ... final set of comparables include only one company which is seen as a narrow set. The comparables have been selected having regard to FAR analysis of the assessee. However in the case of M/s Jupiter Biosciences Limited it is noted that the TPO was not able to get annual accounts

First Credit Ites P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt.Dy/CIT/ITO, National E -Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1183/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am First Credit Ites P. Ltd. The Addl. Commissioner Of D-211, Ghatkopar Indl. Estate, Income-Tax Officer Behind R-City Mall, National E-Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Vs. Centre, Ghatkopar West, Delhi-110003 Mumbai-400 086 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aabcf5210B Assessee By : Shri Sunil Moti Lala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

held that there is no contemporaneous documentation and analysis for adopting the other method. The assessee quoted some man hour rates without undertaking detailed FAR analysis. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel further referred that agreement of the assessee with its Associated Enterprises is not a simple agreement but has various

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkaihalli, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

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. Dmg Mori India Private Limited (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 165/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 165/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dmg Mori India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines & The Deputy Services Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 3/1, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kiadb, Peenya, 1St Stage, Circle – 11(1), Ward No. 1, Hmt, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aabcd0003E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vikram, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act (Rs.2,76,24,000/-) 2.1. Disallowance U/S.40(A)(I) Unwarranted: The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Payments Made To M/S R.S Mail Limited , United Kingdom

For Appellant: Shri Vikram, Advocate
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

incorrectly rejected the Transfer Pricing study of the Assessee. 6.4. The CIT(A) ought to have struck down the incorrect TP methodology, FAR analysis & erroneous comparables chosen by the TPO to arrive at the adjustment of Marketing Support Services. 6.5 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) ought

Novell Software Development (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 319/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

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

respect of comparables excluded and retained respectively. 8. Before we undertake the comparability analysis, it is sine qua non to understand the FAR analysis of the assessee under both the segments. It is been observed by Ld.TPO, that the assessee is wholly owned subsidiary of Novell Inc.USA, and is engaged

ITO Ward - 5(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 280/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

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

respect of comparables excluded and retained respectively. 8. Before we undertake the comparability analysis, it is sine qua non to understand the FAR analysis of the assessee under both the segments. It is been observed by Ld.TPO, that the assessee is wholly owned subsidiary of Novell Inc.USA, and is engaged

Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 7116/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. Income Tax, 10(1)(1), Chakala, Andheri (E), R.No.209, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0964P

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92(2)Section 92BSection 92C

equipments of Rs. 69,51,69,632/- from its Associated Enterprises (AEs). Assessee submitted that the seller is the tested party and considering the FAR analysis 7% markup is considered at Arm’s Length Price. 09. The Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee, analyzed the financials

Ansr Global Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 225/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.225/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Ansr Global Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Ground Floor, Block L1, Circle – 1(1)(1), Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bengaluru. Sez, Outer Ring Road, Nagwara, Bengaluru-560 045. Pan : Aaecn 7296 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

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

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

determined on the basis of mutual negotiation between the parties. The assessee gave a complete description of functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed (FAR analysis) M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., while rendering this provision of software, technical and consultancy services. These facts are brought out in detail

Anz Support Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92BSection 92B(1)Section 92C

respect of an international transaction that is same as the international transaction to which the agreement applies. Further the Functions Assets and Risks (FAR) analysis should not differ materially. Since there is no change in the FAR analysis of the assessee and the nature of international transactions are identical

Credit Suisse Consulting (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

619/Mum/2014

ITA 619/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Intermediary Ltd., and (iii) Twenty First Century Shares and Securities Ltd. are purely stock broking company and, therefore, the same are not comparable on FAR analysis with that of the assessee company and cannot be held as functionally comparable. The companies which are engaged in the "asset management" are basically ... asset management companies are also regulated entities which are required to be licensed by SEBI. Thus, these companies also fail the test of FAR analysis with the investment advisory companies. Thus, Sundaram Asset Management company, Deutche Asset Management India Ltd. and Religare Commodities Ltd., as selected by the TPO, cannot

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

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly

ITA 2870/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 9Th Floor Prestige Of Income-Tax Thirulakshmi Vs. Circle-3(1)(1) No.11 M.G. Road Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 001 Pan No : Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Respondent By : D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 92C

functional analysis serves as a foundation to characterise entities for the purposes of inter-company transfer pricing. Based on facts presented in the above FAR analysis, the assessee can be characterised as a captive service provider that assumes lower than the normal risks associated with the business of providing software

M/S. Capco Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2436/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, 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

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3089/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner Of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax, Begur Hobli, Circle – 7 (1)(2), Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

Mindtree Ltd. d) Persistent Systems Ltd. e) R S Software India Ltd. f) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. We have already elaborated on the FAR analysis of the assessee in the preceding paras. It is submitted that there is no change on the functions of the assessee for the year under

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3088/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner Of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax, Begur Hobli, Circle – 7 (1)(2), Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

Mindtree Ltd. d) Persistent Systems Ltd. e) R S Software India Ltd. f) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. We have already elaborated on the FAR analysis of the assessee in the preceding paras. It is submitted that there is no change on the functions of the assessee for the year under

M/S Talisma Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2499/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2499/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Olympia The Deputy Building, Commissioner Of Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C V Raman Nagar, Circle 7 (1)(1), Byrasandra Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2017 For A.Y. 2013-14 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Talisma Corporation Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned A01 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 (The Act") On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law: 1. The Learned Ao/ Transfer Pricing Officer (.Tpo') Erred. In Law & In Facts. In Making An Addition Of Inr 1,44.13,409

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)

2499/Bang/2017 remand the transfer pricing issues to the Ld.AO/TPO for de novo verification. Assessee is directed to file complete details regarding FAR analysis before the authorities in order to substantiate its arguments regarding the characterisation in the TP study. The Ld.TPO is directed to analyse the details so filed

Ups Asia Group Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1220/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(i)

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 ... 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