comparable companies — 1,304 case laws

Virinchi Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1185/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1185/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S. Virinchi Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacv6672N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Mrs. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 09/10/2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act, In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Drp Dated 19/09/2024 Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The A.Y 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Mrs. U Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153

assessee. The assessee benchmarked its international transaction by adopting the TNMM as the most appropriate method and selected 13 comparable companies with weighted average margin with a median of 6.32% in comparison to the assessee’s operating margin at 12.83%. The TPO questioned the justification of the payment made

Jubilant Generics Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1)(1), G.B. Nagar

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

ITA 2004/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

Loss on sale/ disposal of property/ plant and equipment 4.3 Subsidy received on capital assets 6. The Ld. AO/TPO/DRP erred in rejecting functionally comparable companies for the purpose of determining arm's length price of the impugned transaction ITA No. 2004/Del/2022 Jubilant Generics Ltd. Grounds of appeal with respect ... AO/TPO/DRP erred in law and in facts in not appreciating the fact that the average receivable days of the comparable companies is much higher than the average receivable days of the Appellant. 12.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO/TPO/DRP erred

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)

margin. It was also submitted that, the Indian entity earned net cost plus mark-up and was consistent with the margins earned from independent comparable companies. The assessee thus in the transfer pricing study report held its transaction with the Indian entities to be at arms length. 2.2 The Ld.TPO

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)

margin. It was also submitted that, the Indian entity earned net cost plus mark-up and was consistent with the margins earned from independent comparable companies. The assessee thus in the transfer pricing study report held its transaction with the Indian entities to be at arms length. 2.2 The Ld.TPO

Loreal India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 25 to 35 including 27(a) are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6623/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 4Section 92Section 928Section 92C

above, erred in not appreciating that BLT does not take into account the functional and the accounting differences between the Appellant and the comparable companies; 17. Without prejudice to the above, erred in selecting comparable which are not truly aligned with the functional, risk and asset profile of the Applicant ... application of BLT. Moreover, the nature and channels of AMP spend of comparable companies selected by the TPO do not fully align with that of the Applicant. Also the Ld TPO has erred in failing to provide the details of 43 companies rejected in the search process conducted

Agilent Technologies India Private Limited, District Centre Jasola vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 3853/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No. 3853/Del/2024, A.Y.2020-21 Agilent Technologies India Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Ground Floor, Elegance Tower, Vs. C. R. Building, Plot No. 8, District Center I. P. Estate, New Delhi Jasola, New Delhi-110025, Pan: Aabca9874A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank Khanna, Ar Shri Akhil Goel, Ar Respondent By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit (Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 271ASection 92D

that are functionally dissimilar as compared to the functional profile of the Appellant; 2.4. committing factual/computational errors while computing the operating margins of certain comparable companies; 2.5. committing computational errors while computing the adjustment in the distribution segment; 2.6. disregarding judicial pronouncements in India and international guidance while undertaking

Technip India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Spl Range-9, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

ITA 9852/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 6390/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 9852/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technip Energies India Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited, ( Formerly Known As Income Tax, Technip India Limited), Special Range-9, A-4, Sector 1, Institutional New Delhi Area, Noida – 201 301 Pan No. Aaack3349R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Yishu GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 250Section 92C

prejudice basis to the above grounds, the learned DRP/AO/TPO has erred in not appreciating the fact that operating profitability of Appellant vis-à-vis comparable companies was much higher even after considering the impact for loss of impugned notional interest; 15. On a without prejudice basis to the above grounds ... prejudice basis to the above grounds, the learned AO/TPO has erred in not appreciating the fact that operating profitability of Appellant vis-à-vis comparable companies was much higher even after considering the impact for loss of impugned notional interest. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not providing

Technip India Ltd., Noida vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

ITA 6390/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 6390/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 9852/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technip Energies India Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited, ( Formerly Known As Income Tax, Technip India Limited), Special Range-9, A-4, Sector 1, Institutional New Delhi Area, Noida – 201 301 Pan No. Aaack3349R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Yishu GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 250Section 92C

prejudice basis to the above grounds, the learned DRP/AO/TPO has erred in not appreciating the fact that operating profitability of Appellant vis-à-vis comparable companies was much higher even after considering the impact for loss of impugned notional interest; 15. On a without prejudice basis to the above grounds ... prejudice basis to the above grounds, the learned AO/TPO has erred in not appreciating the fact that operating profitability of Appellant vis-à-vis comparable companies was much higher even after considering the impact for loss of impugned notional interest. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not providing

Wns Business Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3353/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Tarandeep Singh & SandeepFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 250(6)Section 92C(3)Section 92C(4)

year weighted average data of comparables, in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules, should be upheld. Appellant's comparable companies rejected by the Hon'ble CIT(A)/ learned TPO 7. The Hon'ble CIT(A)/ learned TPO erred in rejecting Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ... Datamaties Financial Services Limited and Axis IT & T Limited as comparable companies on the premise that only companies having an export turnover exceeding 75% should be considered comparable to the Appellant for its international transaction of provision of IT enabled services. 8. The Hon'ble CIT(A)/ learned TPO erred

Andante Foods LLP, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

Appeal are allowed, and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1723/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri Harsha M., CA

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

least complex .The assessee adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method using the refinitive fundamentals and worldwide profit company database for comparable companies engaged in distribution of processed food products in Belgium. The assessee selected 13 comparable with median margin of 2.27%, but AE earned a margin of (-) 7.41% from ... jurisdictions. The assessee adopted Page 9 of 12 TNMM as the most appropriate method using the refinitive fundamentals and worldwide profit company database for comparable companies engaged in distribution of processed food products in Belgium. The assessee selected 13 comparable with median margin of 2.27%, but AE earned a margin

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)

documentation but not appearing in current year list of probable companies, were additionally indentified and included. In this manner, the assessee finally indentified seven comparable companies with mean coupon rate of which was worked out at 18%. The relevant list of comparables along with their coupon rate of interest

D. E. Shaw India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1154/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1154/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. D.E. Shaw India Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Tax, Pan:Aaacd7214J Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. D E Shaw India Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Passed 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, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 27.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 66 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal, For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. As Per Record, The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, SR-DR

Section 143(3)

assessee has undertaken a working capital adjustment to reflect these differences by adjusting for differences in working capital and thereby, profitability of each comparable company. Accordingly, while calculating the working capital adjusted, operating margin on costs of the comparable companies, the impact of outstanding receivables on the profitability has been ... comparables, then additional imputation of interest on the outstanding receivables is not warranted. 9. The assessee had undertaken a working capital adjustment for the comparable companies selected in its transfer pricing report which was also submitted with the Ld. TPO. A snapshot of the result is provided below: Segment Name

Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal o f the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4521/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit (Earlier Know As Ge Healthd Care Circle12(1) Pvt. Ltd.) 4, Kadugodi, Industrial New Delhi Area, Bangalore,Pan: Aaacw1685J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv, Sh. Viyustirawat, Adv& Sh. Devansh Jain, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

meet the functions, assets and risks criteria as laid down under the Indian Regulations for a comparability analysis. 7.2 By rejecting the comparable companies adopted by the Appellant in the TP documentation for FY 2006-07 based on arbitrary and inconsistent reasons even though they are functionally comparable ... prior years' data as used by the Appellant in the TP documentation and holding that current year (i.e. FY 2006-07) data for the comparable companies should have been used despite the fact that the same was not available to the Appellant at the time of preparation

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2959/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 250

benchmarked the international transaction with its AE by adopting Transaction Net Margin Method and adopting a PLI of OP/Sales. The Assessee has considered 5 comparable companies with average margin of 4.05% and working capital adjusted margins of -0.22% vis a vis Assessee’s margin of 6.45%. The TPO tweaked ... reported in the TP documentation. Further, the TPO rejected search conducted by the Assessee and undertook a fresh search and finally identified 7 comparable companies with margin in the range of 5.26% to 7.72%. Since the revised margin of the Assessee was not within the range, TP adjustment of Rs.4

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2958/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 250

benchmarked the international transaction with its AE by adopting Transaction Net Margin Method and adopting a PLI of OP/Sales. The Assessee has considered 5 comparable companies with average margin of 4.05% and working capital adjusted margins of -0.22% vis a vis Assessee’s margin of 6.45%. The TPO tweaked ... reported in the TP documentation. Further, the TPO rejected search conducted by the Assessee and undertook a fresh search and finally identified 7 comparable companies with margin in the range of 5.26% to 7.72%. Since the revised margin of the Assessee was not within the range, TP adjustment of Rs.4

Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre - Jao - ACIT, Corporate Circle, 3(1), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2757/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 250

benchmarked the international transaction with its AE by adopting Transaction Net Margin Method and adopting a PLI of OP/Sales. The Assessee has considered 5 comparable companies with average margin of 4.05% and working capital adjusted margins of -0.22% vis a vis Assessee’s margin of 6.45%. The TPO tweaked ... reported in the TP documentation. Further, the TPO rejected search conducted by the Assessee and undertook a fresh search and finally identified 7 comparable companies with margin in the range of 5.26% to 7.72%. Since the revised margin of the Assessee was not within the range, TP adjustment of Rs.4

Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre - Jao - ACIT, Corporate Circle, 3(1), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2756/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 250

benchmarked the international transaction with its AE by adopting Transaction Net Margin Method and adopting a PLI of OP/Sales. The Assessee has considered 5 comparable companies with average margin of 4.05% and working capital adjusted margins of -0.22% vis a vis Assessee’s margin of 6.45%. The TPO tweaked ... reported in the TP documentation. Further, the TPO rejected search conducted by the Assessee and undertook a fresh search and finally identified 7 comparable companies with margin in the range of 5.26% to 7.72%. Since the revised margin of the Assessee was not within the range, TP adjustment of Rs.4

Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Corporate Circle, 3(1), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals

ITA 2755/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Acit Corporate Circle 3(1) Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Corporate Circle 3(1) Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &

Section 143(1)Section 250

benchmarked the international transaction with its AE by adopting Transaction Net Margin Method and adopting a PLI of OP/Sales. The Assessee has considered 5 comparable companies with average margin of 4.05% and working capital adjusted margins of -0.22% vis a vis Assessee's margin of 6.45%. The TPO tweaked ... reported in the TP documentation. Further, the TPO rejected search conducted by the Assessee and undertook a fresh search and finally identified 7 comparable companies with margin in the range of 5.26% to 7.72%. Since the revised margin of the Assessee was not within the range, TP adjustment of Rs.4

Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Corporate Circle, 3(1), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the Assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2754/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2754, 2755, 2756 & 2757/Cnny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & Sa 22/Chny/2025 [In Ita 2757/Chny/2024] धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Schneider Electric Systems Acit India Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1) Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Chennai. Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2958 & 2959/Chny/2024 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 Acit Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Corporate Circle 3(1) Vs. Chennai. Sp Plot, 16-20 & 20A, Tamarai Tech Park, Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aabcs-8027-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) धनिाजररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms. Tanya, Advocate (Virtual) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 250

benchmarked the international transaction with its AE by adopting Transaction Net Margin Method and adopting a PLI of OP/Sales. The Assessee has considered 5 comparable companies with average margin of 4.05% and working capital adjusted margins of -0.22% vis a vis Assessee’s margin of 6.45%. The TPO tweaked ... reported in the TP documentation. Further, the TPO rejected search conducted by the Assessee and undertook a fresh search and finally identified 7 comparable companies with margin in the range of 5.26% to 7.72%. Since the revised margin of the Assessee was not within the range, TP adjustment of Rs.4

Apollo Tyres Ltd., Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 679/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 35Section 92C

Rules') and hence cannot be used for benchmarking the transaction. Hence, such comparables ought to be excluded from the final list of comparable companies. d. The TPO/AO/DRP erred in not appreciating that all the comparables chosen by the Appellant in its Transfer Pricing Documentation meet the FAR test ... such are comparable to the Appellant. Hence, such comparables ought to be included in the final list of comparable companies, e. That the TPO/ AO/DRP erred in not allowing the benefit of working capital adjustment and risk adjustment, to the Appellant, without appreciating that such an adjustment is warranted

“comparable companies”

Leading authorities on comparable companies

Judgments citing comparable companies

Virinchi Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

Jubilant Generics Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1)(1), G.B. Nagar

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

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

Loreal India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

Agilent Technologies India Private Limited, District Centre Jasola vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

Technip India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Spl Range-9, New Delhi

Technip India Ltd., Noida vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

Wns Business Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Andante Foods LLP, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

D. E. Shaw India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre - Jao - ACIT, Corporate Circle, 3(1), Chennai

Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre - Jao - ACIT, Corporate Circle, 3(1), Chennai

Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Corporate Circle, 3(1), Chennai

Schneider Electric Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Corporate Circle, 3(1), Chennai

Apollo Tyres Ltd., Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1), Kochi