“comparable companies”

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. BP INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), P B No 19411, Mumbai Vs. Technopolis Knowledge Park, Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 276/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income P B No 19411, Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mumbai Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan & Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Cas Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit (A) 55, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1076574916(1), Dated 30/05/2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit - 9(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(3)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.04.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2

erred by relying on the stand of the Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's own case in AY 2008-09 regarding the comparable company Acropetal Technologies Ltd, without appreciating the fact that each year's transfer pricing proceeding is distinct and based on the facts and circumstances on that year ... allowing the working capital adjustment to eliminate the differences on account of varying working capital position between the assessee and the comparable companies, and 1.7. not allowing the risk adjustment to account for the differences in the risk profile between the assessee and the comparable companies. 1.8. not allowing

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

applying the filter of diminishing revenue and\npersistent loss as well as different financial year ending and rejecting the\nfollowing comparable companies which were accepted by the appellant in\nthe transfer pricing study as a comparable company in respect of the\nData Processing and Support Services Segment.\n• NIIT Smartserve ... services segment:\n1.3.2 The learned AO/TPO under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred\non facts and in law in considering the following comparable companies in\nrespect of Data Processing and Support Services Segment without taking\ninto consideration the differences in the functions performed, assets\nemployed and risks undertaken

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

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

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

disregarding the various submissions made by the Appellant without providing any cogent reasons thereof and also erroneously rejected the benchmarking analysis and comparable companies selected by the Appellant without appreciating the fact that such selection was based on contemporaneous data and the transfer pricing study report prepared and maintained ... applying the filter of diminishing revenue and persistent loss as well as different financial year ending and rejecting the following comparable companies which were accepted by the appellant in the transfer pricing study as a comparable company in respect of the Data Processing and Support Services Segment. • NIIT Smartserve

DCIT-13(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed and\nappeal of the assessee stands allowed

erred and violated the\nprinciple of natural justice by not giving due cognizance to the detailed\nanalysis of comparable companies submitted by the Appellant in its TP\nStudy report.\n3.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in considering Net Profit Margin (NPM) of\n23.40% as against NPM of 22.31% earned ... comparables are as listed below:\n1. Akshay Software Technologies Limited\n2. R Systems International Limited\n3.9 The CIT(A) erred in rejecting 9 comparable companies concluding that\nthe said comparables are consistent loss making or are earning returns not\ncomparable to the appellant. The said 9 comparables are as listed

ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed and\nappeal of the assessee stands allowed

erred and violated the\nprinciple of natural justice by not giving due cognizance to the detailed\nanalysis of comparable companies submitted by the Appellant in its TP\nStudy report.\n3.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in considering Net Profit Margin (NPM) of\n23.40% as against NPM of 22.31% earned ... comparables are as listed below:\n1. Akshay Software Technologies Limited\n2. R Systems International Limited\n3.9 The CIT(A) erred in rejecting 9 comparable companies concluding that\nthe said comparables are consistent loss making or are earning returns not\ncomparable to the appellant. The said 9 comparables are as listed

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. DNJ CREATION LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing)

engaged in diamond business. The profit level indicator being OP/OC of the diamond division are above the profit level indicator of the range of comparable companies establishing that no profit had been transferred to the jewellery unit on the specified domestic transaction. The assessee made a prior

UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2015–16 and 2016–17 are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Unilever India Dcit Central Exports Limited, Circle-5(2), Unilever House, B. D. Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Sawant Marg, Floor, Kautilya Chakala, Andheri Bhawan, C-41 To C- East, Sahar P & T 43, G Block, Bandra Colony, S. O. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 099 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aaaci0991D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarphekara/W Shri Harsh Shah & Shri Shreyas Sardesai, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2026

under contract transaction manufacturing model Margin earned in AE 10.83 percent 14.74 percent segment (as per assessee) Median margin of 5.85 percent 4.14 percent comparable companies (as per updated analysis) Range of comparable 3.34 percent to 8.31 1.23 percent to 6.70 percent companies percent First round ... TNMM. However, since the TPOhad not examined the comparables selected by the assessee under External TNMM, the issue of determining the appropriateness of the comparable companies was restored to the file of the TPOfor fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 7. Pursuant to the said remand, the TPOexamined the comparables

UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

functional dissimilarity. For\n Assessment Year 2016–17, all seventeen companies selected by\nthe assessee were similarly rejected. The TPOtook the view that\nno comparable companies were available under External TNMM\nand, holding that the scope of remand permitted fresh\nadjudication, reverted to Internal TNMM and recomputed the\ntransfer pricing ... directions under section\n144C(5), upheld the application of turnover, related party\ntransaction and export filters and agreed with the TPOthat no\nappropriate comparable companies were available for application\nof External TNMM. The DRP further held that the remand by the\nTribunal permitted fresh examination and justified the adoption

FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

erred in disregarding the search process of the company without pointing out any deficiency in the search process and erred in rejecting valid comparable companies selected by the Appellant in order to benchmark its international transaction-the comparable companies rejected by the AO/ TPO/ DRP which ought to be included ... providing advisory services similar to that of the assessee under their single segment as reported in their respective Annual Reports. Assessee had shortlisted these comparable companies considering turnover less than Rs.200 crores which is an accepted turnover filter. However, ld. TPO had applied the turnover filter of 1/10th