“comparable companies”

Vertex Offshore Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dict, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

challenge ground no.7. Therefore, ground no.7 of the appellant company is dismissed as not pressed. 10. Ground No.3 relates to selection of non- comparable companies. 11. Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, out of 11 comparables challenged by the assessee, the assessee is not pressing ... uphold the order of the learned Assessing Officer/DRP and reject the arguments of the appellant-company. 33. Ground No.4 relates to rejection of comparable companies. 34. Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to ground no.4 of appellant company submitted that, although, the appellant seeks to include

Delicatessen Engineering Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 8(1), Hyderabad

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.835/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Delicatessen Vs. Dy. Cit. Engineering Services Circle- 8(1), Private Hyderabad Limited,Hyderabad Pan:Aagcd8678N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Dated,18/07/2024, In Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Drp-1 Bengaluru, Dated 26/02/2024 U/S 144C(5) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Relating To A.Y.2020-21. Page 1 Of 32

operating cost to the operating profit has been taken to be the profit level indicator (PLI) in TNNM analysis. The appellant has selected 8 comparable companies for engineering design services on the basis of search conducted in the public data basis. 4. During the course of assessement proceedings, a reference ... requirement, these details are not mandatory under Schedule-3. Hence it may be difficult to adjust for any capacity utilization between the assessee and comparable companies due to lack of sufficient data. Therefore, rejected the grounds taken by the assessee. 9. In pursuant to the directions issued

Natems Solar Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(1), Hyderabad

Bench: Us:

transaction of payment of interest on CCD’s. It had based on a search on the NSDL website, wherein, the arms length range of comparable companies was between 10% (35th percentile) and 11.10 (65th percentile) and the median being 10.75%, claimed that the subject payment of interest on CCDs ... financial year 2011-12. The appellant has benchmarked the transaction of interest paid on FCCDs by applying the CUP method and selected comparable companies which are in similar line of business and paid interest on FCCDs. The TPO determined the TP adjustment by holding the transaction to be a loan

Biogenex Life Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Length Price'. 5.2 ought to have considered the entity level operating margin of the assessee is much higher than the margin of the comparable companies as selected by the Ld. TPO in the TP Analysis. busine ness erred in calculating the margins of the assessee by dividing the expenses ... Company. 6.1 erred in taking the data that which is not publicly available by the prescribed date. 6.2 erred in considering data of the comparable companies that becomes available subsequent to date of TP documentation which is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 6.3 erred

Dsm Shared Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

considered in the selection of comparables provided the functional comparability is established. The Ld. DR further argued that, the assessee as well as comparable companies are operating in the field of human sources intensive industry, wherein increase in turnover is accompanied by a corresponding increase in the expenditure. Therefore, mere ... entities having difference of Rs.1 crore cannot be considered as comparable, whereas on the other hand difference of Rs.199 crores can be considered as comparable company. Therefore, such classification of comparables on the basis of companies selected on turnover basis is not appropriate and acceptable. The turnover, no doubt

Gainsight Software Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

doubtful debts as part of the operating cost and considering miscellancous income as operating in nature, while computing the operating margin of the comparable companies. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO / Ld. TPO/ Ld. DRP erred in: a) not granting ... considered in the selection of comparables provided the functional comparability is established. The Ld. DR further argued that, the assessee as well as comparable companies are operating in the field of human sources intensive industry, wherein increase in turnover is accompanied by a corresponding increase in the expenditure. Therefore, mere

Open Text Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon'Ble

length price. 3. Use of additional filters : Inter-alia use of the following additional / modified filters in undertaking the comparative analysis and rejecting comparable companies : (a) 75% Export Revenue Filter. (b) Different Financial Year Filter; and (c) Using one sided turnover filter. 4. Selection of additional companies : Not undertaking ... Technologies Limited (i) Thirdware Solutions Limited. 5. Rejection of Comparables : Not undertaking an objective and consistent comparative analysis and inter-alia rejecting the following comparable companies: (a) Akshay Software Technologies Limited. (b) Caliber Point Business solutions Limited (Seg) (c) Maveric Systems Limited (d) Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd (Seg) (e) Sagar