← 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

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 284/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

expenditure is considered as cost, the net margin of the Appellant computed based on TNMM is higher than the net margin earned by comparable companies and meaning thereby that Appellant has already been adequately remunerated/ compensated for AMP as well. 27. erred in levying a mark ... been a third services and without any mark up? 7.1.3 It is seen that the ratio of AMP expenditure to sales incurred by the comparable company selected by the taxpayer, is much lower than the ratio of AMP expenditure to Sales, incurred by the taxpayer. The TPO is therefore

Applabs Technologies Pvt Ltd (Now Merged With Computer Science Corporation Pvt Ltd ), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 854/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

Comparables 7. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred in the law and facts by selecting the inappropriate/arbitrary filters for selecting the comparable companies. 8. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred, in law and in facts, by selecting certain additional companies as comparables which ... functionally comparable to the appellant. 9. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred, in law and facts, by rejecting certain functionally comparable companies identified by the Appellant. Erroneous computation of income of margins of comparable companies. 10. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Applabs Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With M/S Computer Science India Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 1805/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

Comparables 7. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred in the law and facts by selecting the inappropriate/arbitrary filters for selecting the comparable companies. 8. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred, in law and in facts, by selecting certain additional companies as comparables which ... functionally comparable to the appellant. 9. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred, in law and facts, by rejecting certain functionally comparable companies identified by the Appellant. Erroneous computation of income of margins of comparable companies. 10. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred

Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited (Previously Known As Applabs Technologies Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 1793/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

Comparables 7. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred in the law and facts by selecting the inappropriate/arbitrary filters for selecting the comparable companies. 8. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred, in law and in facts, by selecting certain additional companies as comparables which ... functionally comparable to the appellant. 9. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred, in law and facts, by rejecting certain functionally comparable companies identified by the Appellant. Erroneous computation of income of margins of comparable companies. 10. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 309/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.309/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Oakton Global Technology Vs. Income Tax Officer Services Centre (India) (P) Ltd, Ward 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaaco8824H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(5)

only; Use of additional filters 3) Inter-alia use of the following additional/modified filters in undertaking the comparative analysis and rejecting comparable companies having: (a) Different financial year-end; and Page 2 of 16 ITA No 309 of 2017 Oakton Global Technology Services Centre India P Ltd (b) Export sales ... Thirdware Solutions Ltd; and g) Zylog Systems Ltd Rejection of comparables 5) Not undertaking an objective comparative analysis and interalia rejecting the following comparable companies identified by the Appellant: a) CAT Technologies Ltd; b) CG-VAK Software Exports Ltd (Software Services Seg); and c) Thinksoft Global Services Ltd;. Provision

Clinasia Labs Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 202/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri Nemichand Sirvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

ought to have considered the availability of data and ought to have selected these companies as Comparable Companies. i. SagarSoft (India) Ltd ii. Evoke Technologies Pvt Ltd iii. Sankhya Infotech Ltd iv. Harbinger Systems Pvt Ltd v . Maveric Systems Ltd. vi. Agilisys IT Services India ... Bradstreet report under the category of small firms. Accordingly, based on the above discussion, the Assessee wishes to submit that the following comparable companies should not be accepted as comparable companies since the sales turnover for all these companies exceed the upper limit of INR 200 crores: Total Sales - Weighted

Caterpillar India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2749/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2749/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. Dcit 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.22/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.2749/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai-34. Taramani Road, Taramani, Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

learned AO, learned TPO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not considering multiple Year financial data of the comparable companies while determining the arm's length price' as prescribed under Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). 4. The learned AO, learned ... instead of the data available at the time of preparing the transfer pricing documentation as mandated under Rule 10D(4) of the Rules for comparable companies in determining arm's length price. 5. The learned AO, learned TPO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in rejecting comparability analysis carried

Bundy India Ltd., Baroda vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1764/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

erred in law and on facts in disregarding methodical search process undertaken by the appellant and rejecting 5 (five) out of 8 (eight) comparable companies selected by the Appellant, without taking cognizance of Rule 10B(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules"). 4.3 The AO violated the principle ... comparables. 4.3.1 The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in disregarding the data for export turnover submitted by the appellant for alleged comparable companies selected by the AO. 4.3.2 The AO/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in disregarding the publicly available data in respect

ACIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bofa Securities India Limited (Earlier Known As Dsp Merrill Lynch Ltd ), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6175/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

margin earned by the assessee was 69.30% from the entire broking segment which was higher than the arithmetic mean of the margins earned by comparable companies as per the two independent benchmarking reports which were 19.15% and 17. 78% and therefore, it was stated that the same should be considered ... Assessee, the margin earned by the assessee works out to be 17.2 percent which was higher than the arm's length margin of comparable companies of 13.67% and accordingly, the transaction was concluded to be at arm's length. The learned TPO in para 4.3 of his order, considered direct

M/S Bofa Securities India Limited (Formerly Known As A Dsp Merill Lynch Ltd ), Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 5864/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2003-04
Section 143(3)

margin earned by the assessee was 69.30% from the entire broking segment which was higher than the arithmetic mean of the margins earned by comparable companies as per the two independent benchmarking reports which were 19.15% and 17. 78% and therefore, it was stated that the same should be considered ... Assessee, the margin earned by the assessee works out to be 17.2 percent which was higher than the arm's length margin of comparable companies of 13.67% and accordingly, the transaction was concluded to be at arm's length. The learned TPO in para 4.3 of his order, considered direct

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bofa Securities India Limited (Earlier Known As M/S Dsp Merrill Lynch Limited ), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5425/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

margin earned by the assessee was 69.30% from the entire broking segment which was higher than the arithmetic mean of the margins earned by comparable companies as per the two independent benchmarking reports which were 19.15% and 17. 78% and therefore, it was stated that the same should be considered ... Assessee, the margin earned by the assessee works out to be 17.2 percent which was higher than the arm's length margin of comparable companies of 13.67% and accordingly, the transaction was concluded to be at arm's length. The learned TPO in para 4.3 of his order, considered direct

Bofa Securities India Limited (Formerly Known As Dsp Merill Lynch Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5416/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2002-03
Section 143(3)

margin earned by the assessee was 69.30% from the entire broking segment which was higher than the arithmetic mean of the margins earned by comparable companies as per the two independent benchmarking reports which were 19.15% and 17. 78% and therefore, it was stated that the same should be considered ... Assessee, the margin earned by the assessee works out to be 17.2 percent which was higher than the arm's length margin of comparable companies of 13.67% and accordingly, the transaction was concluded to be at arm's length. The learned TPO in para 4.3 of his order, considered direct

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2153/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

Cost Plus mark-up ('NCP') / Net Profit Margin ('NPM') (after considering services availed from assessee) that are consistent with the margins earned 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

Daeseung Autoparts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT (OSD), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 752/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.752/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Daeseung Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Osd) Plot No,474, Mannur Village, Corporate Range-1, बनाम/ Vs. Valarpuram Post, Sriperumpudhur Taluk Chennai. Kanchipuram- 602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccd-5629-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Suresh (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 92C

erred, in law and in facts by not providing the complete details of the search process undertaken in order to arrive at the comparable companies lo lest the ALP of international transactions undertaken by the Appellant. 5. The Learned TPO/AO and the DRP erred by applying certain arbitrary quantitative

Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore, India vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore, India

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

ITA 312/BANG/2024[AY 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

hence, was correctly rejected by the TPO. 2.1.4.3 The TPO carried out a search process on Bloomsberg database and finalised a list of three comparable companies and the Assessee was provided with the details of the search process vide a show cause notice dated 22/10/2022. Hence the contention

Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), Delhi

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

ITA 475/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumarmckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 16 (1), 3Rd Floor, Block Iii, Delhi. Vatika Business Park, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaccm2356G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 Date Of Order : 04.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 21.01.2022 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Drp For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

undertaking working capital adjustment by the Appellant which takes into account the difference in credit terms of the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparable companies. 15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO / TPO / Hon'ble DRP have erred in not considering the fact

Isoft Health Management India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 976/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.976/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Isoft Health Management India Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 4Th Floor, Capital . Income Tax, Towers, No. 180, Kodambakkam High Corporate Circle 2(2), Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aalcs8600A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaragahavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.02.2015 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaragahavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

note that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, by placing reliance of many decisions of different Hon’ble High Courts, held that the comparable companies having huge turnover cannot be compared to companies having low turnover. The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to refer the decision ... clearly shows that Infosys Ltd. is a giant company in terms of turnover as compared to the assessee. Therefore, Infosys Limited cannot be a comparable company and it is liable to be excluded from the list of comparables. 11. Likewise, the financial data of Larsen & Toubro Infotech

Trend Micro India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 8751/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Trend Micro India Private Limited, Vs Acit, 10Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Circle-25(2), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacct2082Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate & Shri S.S. Tomar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

While enhancing the valuation, he made comparable analysis of operating profit/operating cost (OP/OC) as the profit level indicator of 10 companies by rejecting 05 comparable companies identified by appellant. He computed the average OP/OC at 13.87% by making adjustment of Rs. 1,49,29,635/- pertaining to business support services ... AO/TPO and did not contest the issue in the appeal. Thus, it is clear that the appellant had wrongly computed the OP/OC margin of comparable companies in both ways. These facts clearly show that the appellant had neither acted in good faith nor with due diligence. Since the conduct

Uttam Energy Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-12, Pune

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2033/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

Officer acting under directions of leaned Dispute Resolution Panel erred both on facts and in law in adding 2 new companies into set of comparable companies without appreciating the fact that these companies are not at all comparable with the assessee company during application of external transactional net margin method

Clsa India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 6232/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Clsa India Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit Ltu 29Th Floor, Centre 1 World Trade Formerly Known As Clsa India Ltd. Vs. 8/F Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Centre, Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2262 K (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarpekar, Shri Paras Savla : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Sr. Ar & Respondent By Shri A. K. Ambastha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2024

Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

transaction, as the internal CUP, not appreciating that for benchmarking international transactions, the comparable data should be pertaining to uncontrolled transactions or for uncontrolled comparable companies. 16. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO/ learned AO/ learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate ... year under consideration and had determined the ALP for the said transaction as per the operating profit margin of the assessee company with the comparable companies which is worked out to be 8.29% of the operating profit margin of the comparable company as against 70.37% of the operating profit margin