← 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

Quinnox Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4299/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

accept the benchmarking of the assessee and hold that assessee’s PLI derived from AE is far better than Non-AE segment and even FAR analysis is also similar in both the segments, therefore AE transaction can be reckoned as arms lengths transaction. 23. In so far as rejection

Here Solutions India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 10 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the asessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5918/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrianikesh Banerjee () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92D

5918/Mum/2024 Here Solutions India Pvt Ltd theTPO to verify and determine which companies are truly comparable. The Tribunal, based on a FAR analysis, rightly held that M/s. Indowind Energy Ltd. and B.F. Utilities Ltd. were not comparable as they operate in the wind energy sector, while the respondent-assessee

International Seaport Dredging Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 72/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.72/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.35/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ It (Tp)A No.87/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. International Seaport Dredging Dcit / Jcit(Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-2(2) बनाम 5Th Floor, Challam Towers, Chennai. Old No.62, New No.113, / Vs. Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aabci-2286-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah (C.A) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A.Sasi Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: These Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Separate Orders Of Assessments Framed By Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah (C.A) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasi Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

comparable companies, computation of profit margin of Appellant and comparable companies and undertaking economic adjustment. 2.2. The lower authorities have erred in disregarding the FAR analysis submitted by the Appellant and erroneously characterized the Appellant's transaction as a high- end service. 2.3. Without prejudice to the above, the lower

ACIT, Circle- II, International Taxation, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools M.E. Ltd., Dehradun

ITA 5696/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

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

Weatherford Oil Tools Me Ltd., Dehradun vs. ACIT, Circle- II, International Taxation, Dehradun

ITA 5647/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

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

ACIT, Circle- II, International Taxation, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools M.E. Ltd., Dehradun

ITA 417/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

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

Weatherford Oil Tools M.E. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, International Taxation, Dehradun

ITA 7848/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

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

ACIT, Circle- II, International Taxation, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Ltd., Dehradun

ITA 7477/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

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

Weatherford Oil Tools M E Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun

ITA 7334/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Anil ChachraFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 92D

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

The Dcitbharuch Range, Bharuch vs. Heubach Colour Pvt.Ltd., Ankleshwar

In the result, Ground Number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 547/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

despite repeated requests. As a result, the TPO was unable to verify the functions, assets, and risks (FAR) of Colour Ltd., and hence, the FAR analysis presented by the assessee was not acceptable. The TPO pointed out that Colour Ltd. acted primarily as a routing entity without bearing marketing risks ... appropriate method and that it should be considered the tested party, given its limited risk as a custom manufacturer. The assessee submitted that the FAR analysis, supported by contracts and documents, was sufficient to demonstrate that Colour Ltd. was responsible for marketing and distribution, and not for any substantial manufacturing

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

actually functionally comparable to the assessee before applying the decision of this Tribunal. The Ld. DR argued that, a proper FAR analysis is required to determine whether ADP Pvt. Ltd. and assessee are functionally similar or not. He further submitted that, unless the ADP Pvt. Ltd. is established ... assessee. Therefore, it was prayed before the bench that the issue ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 32 2130/Hyd/2017 may be remanded to Ld. AO/TPO for verification of FAR analysis of ADP Pvt. Ltd. with the assessee. 17.2 We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

actually functionally comparable to the assessee before applying the decision of this Tribunal. The Ld. DR argued that, a proper FAR analysis is required to determine whether ADP Pvt. Ltd. and assessee are functionally similar or not. He further submitted that, unless the ADP Pvt. Ltd. is established ... assessee. Therefore, it was prayed before the bench that the issue ITA Nos.32/Hyd/2019 & 32 2130/Hyd/2017 may be remanded to Ld. AO/TPO for verification of FAR analysis of ADP Pvt. Ltd. with the assessee. 17.2 We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light

Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1076/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Schneider Electric India Vs Acit Pvt.Ltd., 9Th Floor, Tower C Circle-22(2) Building No.10, Dlf Cyber Room No. 226 City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon C.R. Building Hartyana-122002 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aabcs1642G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. & Tanya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

Hyderabad. The summary of the FAR profiles of the 4 sub- segments has been presented under for the Bench's ready reference: Summary of FAR analysis for manufacturing sub-segments of SEIPL Particulars Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Import-License Export-contract Local-Independent Hyderabad-Start up manufacturing manufacturing operations manufacturing

Fincantieri Spa, Noida vs. ACIT It Circle 2(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3313/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 44D

which has to be judged based on functions, assets and risk analysis. As noted above, the detailed transfer pricing study was conducted based on FAR analysis to justify the remuneration / attribution of income to the PO. From the perusal of the TP study report, it is seen that following FAR ... carried out by the head office in Italy and the PO in India has practically very limited role and no risk. Thus, according to FAR analysis, the revenue from the said contract mostly pertains to assessee in Italy and only a limited attribution can be made

Purpletalk India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 193/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA PVSS PrasadFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 37(1)Section 92C

submitted that, the turnover filter is not an appropriate filter for excluding companies for the purpose of TP analysis, when the FAR analysis of said companies are similar to the assessee- company. Further, when the assessee-company adopted TNMM as most appropriate method, it is re-silent to minor ... exclusion of R S Software (India) Ltd., though originally it was selected by the assessee in it’s TP study, after considering it’s FAR analysis as comparable, but, the assessee company subsequently on the basis of an order of some Tribunal cannot seek to exclude unless it has makes

Knauf India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Know As Usg Boral Building Products (India) Pvt Ltd), Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-14(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 2061/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR
Section 144Section 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

accepted by the Ld. TPO in all preceding assessment years and the facts and circumstances, including Functions, Assets and Risk ('FAR') analysis of the Appellant, are identical in the assessment year under consideration and the preceding assessment years, thereby disregarding the rule of consistency as enunciated in various judicial pronouncements ... report submitted by the assessee before the TPO and he brought to our notice page 276 of the paper book wherein assessee has submitted FAR analysis and trading functions of the assessee wherein assessee purchases goods from its AE and sell the same to customers. He submitted that same method

Knauf India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Know As Usg Boral Building Products (India) Pvt Ltd), Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 14 (3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 2060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR
Section 144Section 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

accepted by the Ld. TPO in all preceding assessment years and the facts and circumstances, including Functions, Assets and Risk ('FAR') analysis of the Appellant, are identical in the assessment year under consideration and the preceding assessment years, thereby disregarding the rule of consistency as enunciated in various judicial pronouncements ... report submitted by the assessee before the TPO and he brought to our notice page 276 of the paper book wherein assessee has submitted FAR analysis and trading functions of the assessee wherein assessee purchases goods from its AE and sell the same to customers. He submitted that same method

Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 11.1, Kolkata

ITA 2319/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, AR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1801/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

services. In the Transfer pricing assessment, ld. TPO rejected certain comparables selected by the assessee owing to difference in functions, assets, risk (FAR analysis). Assessee raised the objections and submitted that comparables taken by the Ld. TPO are functionally not comparable. Ld. TPO rejected the objections raised by the assessee ... undertake fresh comparability test based on the charts submitted on record. According to him, it is important that proper functional profile including the FAR analysis as well as economic analysis must be undertaken to arrive at the correct bench- marking. 11.1. In this respect, he submitted that assessee provides following

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2631/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

services. In the Transfer pricing assessment, ld. TPO rejected certain comparables selected by the assessee owing to difference in functions, assets, risk (FAR analysis). Assessee raised the objections and submitted that comparables taken by the Ld. TPO are functionally not comparable. Ld. TPO rejected the objections raised by the assessee ... undertake fresh comparability test based on the charts submitted on record. According to him, it is important that proper functional profile including the FAR analysis as well as economic analysis must be undertaken to arrive at the correct bench- marking. 11.1. In this respect, he submitted that assessee provides following