← 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

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 163/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

margin less than 1%. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to hold that the comparables chosen by the assessee duly fulfilled the comparability test of FAR analysis and in view of the decision of the Special Bench of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of M/s Quark Systems

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupur vs. Sri Shanmugavel Mills Private Limited, Tirupur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1048/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Saddik Ahmed, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92C

electricity from the captive windmills to the textile division of the assessee company has been at arm’s length. However, the TPO carried out FAR analysis of the assessee & the TNEB, and rejected the Sri Shanmugavel Mills Pvt. Ltd :: 3 :: method of ALP adopted by the assessee by bench marking

Juniper Networks Solution India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC Itd, New Delhi

In the result, ground no 3 raised by the assessee is allowed in its favour

ITA 4400/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Juniper Networks Solution India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assessment Unit, Unit No.Iia, 06Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Nfac Itd, Parliament Street, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaecj1345A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Shri Sandeep Bhalla, Advocate Shri Anurag Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.07.2024 Passed By The Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)/144B 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.

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

profile of the assessee at page 1 of TPO order and also para 5.8 of the DRP order where they have clearly recorded the FAR analysis. Further he brought to our notice the TP study submitted by the assessee, which is placed at pages 23 to 34 of the paper

Franklin Templeton Internaitoanl Services (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 7216/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

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

Section 133(6)Section 92D

Assets (incl. Capital WIP) 1,633,781 Investments 180,413 Net Current Assets 27,330 Total 1,841,524 7.3 Based on the above FAR analysis, we undertake the comparability of the alleged comparable by the assessee for exclusion under both segments. 8. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that

Franklin Templeton International Services (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 3(1)(OSD), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 6986/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

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

Section 133(6)Section 92D

Assets (incl. Capital WIP) 1,633,781 Investments 180,413 Net Current Assets 27,330 Total 1,841,524 7.3 Based on the above FAR analysis, we undertake the comparability of the alleged comparable by the assessee for exclusion under both segments. 8. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that

Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2346/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT (DR)

manufacturing segment adopted TNMM as most appropriated method and taken OP/OR as PLI. Further, the assessee after study of public database and FAR analysis selected 6 comparable companies, the margin of which ranges between 0.88 % to 5.04 %. Accordingly, the margin earned by the assessee company being OP/OR ... trading less than 75% excluded - Revenue from export less than 75% excluded - Turnover having less than 1 crore excluded - RPT more than 25% excluded - FAR analysis 7.1 Based on these filters, the TPO selected 14 companies as comparables. The assessee during the proceedings raised various objections against the rejection

Invesco (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1320/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1320/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Invesco (India) (P) Ltd Vs. Hyderabad Dy.Cit Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Respondent) Pan:Aacch8216L (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Cas Shri K.C.Devdas, Kranthi Pallivelu & Mrudulatha राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Invesco (India) (P) Ltd, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Pass By The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao") U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act (“ The Act”), Dated 29.10.2024 For The A.Y 2021-22.

For Appellant: CAs Shri K.C.Devdas, KranthiFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

ITA No 1320 of 2024 Invesco India P Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Panasonic India Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Neac, New Delhi

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

ITA 612/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshpanasonic India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Neac, 12Th Floor, Ambience New Delhi Corporate Office, Tower-2, Ambience Island, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcp9391B

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

consistency, the assessee is entitled for relief in the instant case. 4.10. In view of the aforesaid observations, we hold that considering the FAR analysis of the assessee, RPM has been rightly adopted by the assessee as the MAM. We find that even by using the comparables of the Learned

Sp Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6575/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsp Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited 404, Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. Pan: Aaqcs7983P ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/w Shri Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe & Shri Aditya M. Rai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 253(1)Section 92C(1)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

same were being paid to the associated enterprise as it is, without keeping any margin. The learned DR submitted that, as per the FAR analysis, the assessee assumed various risks separately or jointly with the associated enterprise in the execution of the contract with ONGC. Therefore, the assessee is entitled

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 2259/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

justify the arm's length nature of its international transaction, Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that Indian AEs have benchmarked all the transactions after detailed FAR analysis entered into with the assessee. The Indian AEs have earned Net Cost Plus Margin /Net Profit Margin (after considering services availed from assessee) that

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 1615/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

justify the arm's length nature of its international transaction, Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that Indian AEs have benchmarked all the transactions after detailed FAR analysis entered into with the assessee. The Indian AEs have earned Net Cost Plus Margin /Net Profit Margin (after considering services availed from assessee) that

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Mahindra Homes Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1212/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sriram a/w Mr. Samyak LohadeFor Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

shall be had to: (i) the specific characteristics of the property transferred or services provided; (ii) the functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed (FAR analysis); (iii) the contractual terms of the transaction; and (iv) the economic circumstances of the parties and the markets in which they operate

Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

However, they are now made available and therefore, assessee seeks inclusion of the comparable AKASAKA Electronics Ltd., since the other one fails on its FAR analysis, more particularly on the RPT filter and hence has not pressed for inclusion. 13.1. In respect of AKASAKA Electronics Ltd., according to the assessee ... from the electronic database and has thus discharged its primary onus. While doing so, it has undertaken the Function, Assets and Risks (FAR) analysis, applying filters on a scientific basis and thus arrived at its benchmarking. Further, according to the assessee, suitable adjustments on account of difference in products could

Dy CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Novateur Electricals and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1189/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

However, they are now made available and therefore, assessee seeks inclusion of the comparable AKASAKA Electronics Ltd., since the other one fails on its FAR analysis, more particularly on the RPT filter and hence has not pressed for inclusion. 13.1. In respect of AKASAKA Electronics Ltd., according to the assessee ... from the electronic database and has thus discharged its primary onus. While doing so, it has undertaken the Function, Assets and Risks (FAR) analysis, applying filters on a scientific basis and thus arrived at its benchmarking. Further, according to the assessee, suitable adjustments on account of difference in products could

Red Hat India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ITO/ Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2442/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2018-19 Red Hat India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of A-201, Supreme Business Park, Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, Supreme City, Vs. Circle-15(3)(1), Hiranandani Gardens, Mumbai. Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan : Aabcr7097N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajit Jain, For Revenue : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-08-2025 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, J.M : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27/07/2022 Passed By The Acit, Circle 15(3)(1) Mumbai, U/S 144C(13) For The A.Y. 2018-19, In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai-2, Dated 15/06/2022 U/S 144C(5).

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

functional profile continues to remain the same as in earlier years. It is also an admitted position that there are no variations in the FAR analysis of the assessee for the year under consideration when compared with AY 2017–18. In fact, this very comparable, Athena Eduspark Ltd., had been ... therefore, direct the Ld. AO/TPO to re-examine the functional profile of Compucom Software Ltd. vis-à-vis AY 2017–18, and if the FAR analysis is found consistent, to retain this company in the final set of comparables. 35. In respect of the comparables (i) M T Education Services

Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range 5 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7269/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.7269/Mum/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor Tower-3 (Wing C) India Bulls Finance Centre), Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan : Aaac0460H ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-5(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate Shri Hiten Chande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234C

expenses incurred by the assessee in India.Inabsence of such an agreement, the first and primary precondition of treating aninternational transaction. It remains unfulfilled. Conducting FAR analysis (radortting an appropriate method is the second stage of TP adjustments. The firstthing is to first stage of TP adjustments. The first thing

Rubicon Research Limited (Formerly Known As Rubicon Research Private Limited), Thane, Maharashtra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6647/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6647/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubicon Research V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly बिधम Income Tax- Circle Known As Rubicon 15(3)(1), Mumbai Research Private Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Limited) Karve Road, New Marine Medone House, B-75, Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai Road No. 33, Wagle 400020 Estate, Thane 400604. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1422M Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri. Asif Karmali (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 234BSection 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

rendered and not the mark up as such. Global TP guidelines enunciate that the intra group services should be delientaed and proper FAR analysis conducted to benchmark the transaction using the appropriate methods. The basic principles emanating from the various judicial decisions regarding IGS are as follows: • Unless the transactions

Ambattur Clothing Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1957/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1957/Chny/2017 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ambattur Clothing Ltd [Now Demerged & Known As M/S. Ambattur Fashion India Pvt. Ltd.] No.86/E-2, Ambattur Industrial Estate Ambattur, Chennai– 600 058. (Pan:Aaaca-4127-D) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Sp Chidambaram, Advocate. Mr. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. 09.07.2025 31.07.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 21.06.2017 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1) For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed In Compliance To Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru (Drp) Vide Order Dated 11.05.2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Readymade Garments To Ae & Non- Ae'S. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Υ.2013-14 On 30.11.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.11,57,20,670/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Accordingly Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. A :-2-:

Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,‘□□' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष एवं

DCIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi vs. Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3190/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalcarlsberg India Private Limited, Dy. Cit, 4Th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Circle-5(2), Commercial Complex,D-4, Saket, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aajcs8454J (Appellant) (Respondent) (Assessment Year 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Carlsberg India Private Circle-5(2), Limited, New Delhi. Vs. 4Th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Commercial Complex, D-4, Saket, New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aajcs8454J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca & Shri Paras Sharma, Ar & Ms. Ruchika Mittal, Ca Department By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

above issue of applying APA methodology even for non-APA years, took note of the fact that there has been no change in the FAR analysis of assessee and the AEs in this assessment year vis-à-vis the year approved in the APA, therefore, the same shall have persuasive

Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3150/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalcarlsberg India Private Limited, Dy. Cit, 4Th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Circle-5(2), Commercial Complex,D-4, Saket, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aajcs8454J (Appellant) (Respondent) (Assessment Year 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Carlsberg India Private Circle-5(2), Limited, New Delhi. Vs. 4Th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Commercial Complex, D-4, Saket, New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aajcs8454J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca & Shri Paras Sharma, Ar & Ms. Ruchika Mittal, Ca Department By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

above issue of applying APA methodology even for non-APA years, took note of the fact that there has been no change in the FAR analysis of assessee and the AEs in this assessment year vis-à-vis the year approved in the APA, therefore, the same shall have persuasive