← All Phrases

“comparable companies”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C1,304 judgments

The decision most relied on for comparable companies is Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (377 ITR 533), cited in 196 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on comparable companies

Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
377 ITR 533 · 2015 · High Court
196
citing judgments

Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) service providers are functionally dissimilar to Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) or Information Technology Enabled Services (ITeS) providers and cannot be compared for transfer pricing purposes, even under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). Further, companies with significantly different business models, such as those with extensive subcontracting, should be excluded as comparables.

DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd.
38 SOT 307 · 2010 · ITAT
179
citing judgments

An assessee is not estopped or precluded from seeking the exclusion of a company from its Transfer Pricing study comparables, even if initially selected, if it can demonstrate valid reasons for non-comparability.

CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd.
36 Taxmann.com 289 · 2013 · High Court
171
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court holds that Infosys Ltd. is not comparable to a captive software development service provider for transfer pricing analysis, given its huge turnover, high profit margins, ownership of intangible intellectual property rights, branded products, and differing risk profile.

Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
376 ITR 183 · 2015 · High Court
170
citing judgments

For transfer pricing comparability analysis, companies should not be excluded solely based on higher turnover if they are otherwise functionally comparable, unless the turnover difference reflects fundamental functional dissimilarities, brand value, or risk profiles that materially impact profitability.

Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT
96 Taxmann.com 263 · 2018 · ITAT
116
citing judgments

A high turnover criterion, such as above Rs. 200 crores, is a valid ground to exclude companies from the list of comparable companies in a transfer pricing analysis, as such companies are not comparable to those with significantly lower turnover.

SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
44 SOT 156 · 2011 · ITAT
100
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuation gains or losses are operational in nature and must be included in the computation of the operating margin for both the assessee and comparable companies when determining the Arm's Length Price.

Mentor Graphics (Noida) (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
109 ITD 101 · 2007 · ITAT
85
citing judgments

A working capital adjustment is mandated and a prerequisite for correctly determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) under Rule 10B(1)(e) and Rule 10B(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. This adjustment accounts for differences in working capital and outstanding receivables between the assessee and comparable companies.

Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
398 ITR 120 · 2017 · High Court
84
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court holds that a detailed functional and working capital analysis, considering various factors, is essential before treating outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction for transfer pricing adjustments on notional interest. Simply making an adjustment based on receivables alone without such study distorts the transaction's character.

Judgments citing comparable companies

Aon Consulting Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissoner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated

ITA 4415/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 154Section 253

case and in law, the Ld. AO/TPO/DRP erred in not appreciating that once a working capital adjustment is performed on the margins of comparable companies, separate determination of arm's length price of outstanding receivables is not required. 13.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT-2 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Iss Facility Services India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2208/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 250

benchmarked the aforesaid two international transactions by considering its AE, i.e., ISS World Services A/S, Denmark, as a tested party. The assessee selected the comparable companies operating in the European Region providing Management Services similar to that provided by ISS World Services A/S, Denmark, to the assessee, and since ... cost- plus margin of the tested party was within the permissible range of three years weighted average net cost plus margin of the comparable companies selected by the assessee, it was claimed that both international transactions are at arm's length price. 6. Pursuant to the reference by the Assessing

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 7779/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271G

Cost-Plus mark-up (NCP)/Net Profit Margin (NPM) (after considering services availed from assessee) that are consistent with the margins carried by independent comparable companies. Accordingly, applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and from the analysis as aforesaid, the services rendered by assessee are considered to be compliant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 98/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 92C

average margin of comparable case. The interest on receivables is bench marked to equate the PLI of the tax payer company with that of comparable company. The TPO has accepted that there is no arm length adjustment is required in this case on account of margin ... Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., (supra), squarely apply in the case of the assessee, since the assessee earned significantly higher margin than the comparable companies, which have been accepted by the TPO, therefore, there was no justification to charge interest on outstandings. The decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/VIZ/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 92C

average margin of comparable case. The interest on receivables is bench marked to equate the PLI of the tax payer company with that of comparable company. The TPO has accepted that there is no arm length adjustment is required in this case on account of margin ... Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., (supra), squarely apply in the case of the assessee, since the assessee earned significantly higher margin than the comparable companies, which have been accepted by the TPO, therefore, there was no justification to charge interest on outstandings. The decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Duggirala

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. Ccl Products (India) Limited, Tax, Guntur-522330, Guntur-522004. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaacc9552G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 92C

average margin of comparable case. The interest on receivables is bench marked to equate the PLI of the tax payer company with that of comparable company. The TPO has accepted that there is no arm length adjustment is required in this case on account of margin ... Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., (supra), squarely apply in the case of the assessee, since the assessee earned significantly higher margin than the comparable companies, which have been accepted by the TPO, therefore, there was no justification to charge interest on outstandings. The decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court

Inlogic Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp. Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3323/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 3323/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153

Daffgdil Software Pvt. Ltd - Geojit Technologies Pvt. Ltd 13. The Ld. DRP have erred in dismissing the contention of the appellant that the abovementioned comparable companies satisfies the RPT filter <25%% applied by the- Ld.TPO and excluded the several comparable companies, when such comparable companies satisfies the employees cost filter ... adopted the employees cost filter >25% as against the using of employees cost filter >60% and wrongly upheld the exclusion of comparable companies by the Ld.TPO, which are otherwise to be included as comparable companies. GROUNDS 15 16 - Erroneous exclusion of comparables – loss making companies - Xeplomac Design And Tech

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 708/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: [Through Hybrid Hearing]For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 92C

activities were actually 14 ITA.Nos.663 & 708/Hyd./2022 integrated, interlinked and mutually dependent. The TPO adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method and identified comparable companies for the entity level benchmarking. The ALP was computed at 16.75%. Further, the TPO held that, entity to be operating in one segment ... substantial portion of the appellant company’s non-current asset. As such, high proportion of intangible asset is not present in any of the comparable companies selected by the learned TPO. Therefore, if at all, goodwill is to be considered as 19 ITA.Nos.663 & 708/Hyd./2022 operating in nature

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly

ITA 663/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Padamchand KhinchaFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 92C

activities were actually 14 ITA.Nos.663 & 708/Hyd./2022 integrated, interlinked and mutually dependent. The TPO adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method and identified comparable companies for the entity level benchmarking. The ALP was computed at 16.75%. Further, the TPO held that, entity to be operating in one segment ... substantial portion of the appellant company’s non-current asset. As such, high proportion of intangible asset is not present in any of the comparable companies selected by the learned TPO. Therefore, if at all, goodwill is to be considered as 19 ITA.Nos.663 & 708/Hyd./2022 operating in nature

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Hitachi Solutions India Private Limited, Kanchipuram

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

ITA 1715/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND\nSHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपीलसं./IT(TP)A No.: 17/CHNY/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nHitachi Solutions India Private\nLimited,\nBlock 5, 10th Floor, 1/124,\nDLF IT Park, Shivaji Gardens,\nMount Poonamallee Road,\nChennai - 600 089.\nThe Deputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax,\nVs. Corporate Circle- 1(1),\nNo.121, M.G.Road,\nChennai - 600 034.\n[PAN:AAACZ-1544-R]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

facts, by treating certain items of income and expense as non-operating in nature while determining the operating margin of the tested party and/or comparable companies. 3.8 The Ld. CT(A) I Ld. TPO I Ld. AO have performed several computational errors in arriving at the margins of the following ... comparable companies for determination of arm's length margin: a) Inteq Software Pvt. Ltd b) Harbinger Systems Pvt Ltd c) d) e) f) g) h) CG Vak Software and Exports Ltd Sagarsoft (India) Ltd Gwynniebee India Pvt. Ltd Backoffice IT Services India Pvt. Ltd Nihilent Ltd Cybage Software

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3(3), Chennai. vs. M/S. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd, Chennai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 717/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 42/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Caterpillar India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Income Tax, Taramani Road, Vs. Central Circle- 3(3), Chennai – 600 113. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 717/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S.Caterpillar India Private Tax, Limited, 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle- 3(3), V. Chennai – 600 034. Taramani Road, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan:Aabcc-4615-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. By Virtual ""थ" की ओर से/Department By : Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Dated 07.03.2023. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For :-2-: It(Tp) A. No:42 /Chny/2023 & The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Harish Ramanathan, C.A. by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Method, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1 OB (3) of the Rules, to eliminate the material differences between the Assessee and the comparable companies. 3(b) Erred in rejecting the claim for idle capacity adjustment, based on erroneous assumption that idle capacity adjustment should be provided only ... Appellant. 3(e) Erred in law and on facts in arbitrarily rejecting the appellant's request to obtain the capacity utilization data from the comparable companies by virtue of powers vested with the TPO under section 133(6) of the Act as upheld by various Tribunals. Erroneous Rejection of Economic

Pos-Hyundai Steel Manufacturing India Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxof Income Tax Circle 1 Ltu, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2485/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2485/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Pos – Hyundai Steel Manufacturing Deputy Commissioner Of Income India Private Limited, Vs. Tax, F-70, Sipcot Industrial Park, Circle -1, Ltu, Irungattukottai S.O., Chennai. Kanchipuram – 602 117. [Pan:Aaacp-6484-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. B. Srinath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

length price, which has been accepted in the previous and future years. 3. Rejection of VAE Filter and erroneous selection of additional comparable companies 3.1 The ld.TPO and the Ld.DRP disregarded the VAE filter adopted by the assessee in selection of comparable companies and did :-3-: ITA. No:2485/Chny/2024 ... previous and future years. 3.4 The Ld.TPO and the Ld.DRP erred in understanding the business of the Appellant and ended in selecting comparable companies like Thana Steels Ltd., Scan Steels Ltd., Tarun International Ltd., and Aarti SteelsLtd. without considering the fact that these companies have value added expenses greater than

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Acuity Knowledge Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Respondent: Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 92C

time of hearing, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.TPO and submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is wrong in taking the comparable companies when there are minor variations. Similarly, the Ld.DR argued that the other companies which were all excluded by the Ld.CIT(A) are also not correct

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 8 and 9 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2436/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Acit, Circle-7(1)(1), Private Limited, 951-A, Rational House, Vs Aayakarbhawan, Mumbai- Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, 400020. Mumbai-400025. [Pan No. Aafca6819F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

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

Cherry picking and not following a scientific search process in identifying companies and not providing the search criteria/ strategy adopted for identifying such additional comparable companies, c) Rejecting the following functionally similar companies selected as comparables by the Appellant in the transfer pricing documentation: • Crystal Hues Limited • iSN Global Solutions ... Microland Limited, by applying turnover filter, g) Rejecting Informed Technologies Limited and Cosmic Global Limited, on account of negative margin earned by the comparable company: h) Considering MPS Limited, as comparable companies to the Assessee without recording the reason for rejecting Assessee's contentions as submitted during the TP proceedings

Atmecs Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1681/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. K.J. Dhivya
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Margin Method [TNMM] as the most appropriate method [MAM] selecting the assessee as tested party adopting Profit Level Indicator [PLI] of OP/OC, selecting One comparable company where the margin of the comparable was stated to be at arm’s length, as the margin of the assessee was stated ... average margin of comparable company was 9.36%, Per Transfer pricing study report [TPSR] assessee submitted that the international transaction is at arm’s length. 6. The ld. TPO noticed that assessee has considered the data available of the comparable company upto April, 2020 only. He also examined the various filters

M/S Vodafone Global Services P Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 660/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Pun/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 156Section 270Section 92C(2)Section 92D

international transaction of provision of information technology enabled ('ITeS') services 2 M/s. Vodafone Global Services Private Limited 2. Disregarding the benchmarking analysis and comparable companies selected by the Appellant based on the contemporaneous data in the transfer pricing study report maintained as per section 92D of the Act. 3. Rejecting ... comparable companies functionally comparable to the Appellant and including comparable companies functionally not comparable to the Appellant. 4. Cherry picking high margin companies and rejecting low margin companies by applying arbitrary filters to arrive at a revised set of comparable companies. 5. Erroneously computing the operating margins of the companies

Troy Chemical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5933/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer SinghFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9

assessee adopted the Resale Price Method (“RPM") as the most appropriate method. By considering itself as a tested party, the assessee identified 22 comparable companies with 35th to 65th percentile range of gross margin, i.e., GP/sales between 4.18% to 8.21% with a median of 6.80%. As the assessee has earned ... excluded 13 companies considering as comparable by the assessee in its Transfer Pricing Study Report and arrived at a set of the following 9 comparable companies for benchmarking the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its AE: - S. No. Company Name GP/Sale 1. IMCD India

Friday Storytellers LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5546/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Karan Thaker a/w

assessee. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. DRP and Id. AO/Id. TPO have erred in rejecting the comparable companies considered by the assessee, without any cogent basis. It is respectfully submitted that the rejection of the comparable companies is unjustified and contrary ... median margin of 21.61% of the comparables and computation of the transfer pricing adjustment is reproduced as under: “On rejection of the said two comparable companies, the following 9 companies, selected by you in your TPSR, has been considered as comparable for benchmarking analysis:- Sr. No. Name of comparable company

Ucweb Mobile Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assessment Unit, Inocome Tax Department, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3945/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)(d)Section 43(3)

assessee further submits that the intensity method is the mirror image of BLT and none of the method expressly mentioned in the Act. AMP comparable companies is mark up to similar percentage. He further submits that the BLT approach has been held as not a proper method

Wrigley India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-27(2), Delhi

ITA 953/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 250(6)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

multiple year/ prior years' data used by the Appellant in the TP Study and holding that current year (i.e. FY 2012-13) data for comparable companies should be used despite the fact that the same was not necessarily available to the Appellant at the time of preparing its TP Study