← 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

Ups Jetair Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 11(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed, the ground no

ITA 1622/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.1622/मुं/2015 (नि.व. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 144C(1)Section 234BSection 32Section 40

respect of reimbursement of employee related expenses of Rs. 1,87,39,390/- paid by Appellant to its AE. 3. Incorrect rejection of comparable companies. 4. Reimbursements of Rs. 16,16,752/- at cost to UPS WWF, towards legal services from DT Exim Private Limited ('Titus'), disallowed under Section ... directions w.r.t. Provision written back, sundry income (reimbursement of expenditure) on T.P adjustment. A perusal of same shows that ever after exclusion of comparable companies the margins are within ±5% range hence, no T.P adjustment is required. Ergo, ground no.3 in Assessee's appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ACIT-11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ups Jetair Express Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1591/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.1622/मुं/2015 (नि.व. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 144C(1)Section 234BSection 32Section 40

respect of reimbursement of employee related expenses of Rs. 1,87,39,390/- paid by Appellant to its AE. 3. Incorrect rejection of comparable companies. 4. Reimbursements of Rs. 16,16,752/- at cost to UPS WWF, towards legal services from DT Exim Private Limited ('Titus'), disallowed under Section

Crm Services India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effect

ITA 1519/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 254

tested party and OP/OC as the PLI. The result of TNMM analysis is summarized herein below: Particulars OP/OC Average of OP/OC of 16 comparable companies 3.71% OP/OC of CRM 18.05% 8. Accordingly, since the operating profit ratio of the appellant on controlled transactions, i.e., 18.05%is higher than the average ... operating profit margin in respect of comparable companies, i.e., 3.71%, the international transactions of payment of royalty entered into by it are considered being at arm’s length. 9. It comes up that earlier in the first round of proceedings, the ld. TPO accepted the transaction of provision of call

Crm Services India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effect

ITA 1518/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 254

tested party and OP/OC as the PLI. The result of TNMM analysis is summarized herein below: Particulars OP/OC Average of OP/OC of 16 comparable companies 3.71% OP/OC of CRM 18.05% 8. Accordingly, since the operating profit ratio of the appellant on controlled transactions, i.e., 18.05%is higher than the average ... operating profit margin in respect of comparable companies, i.e., 3.71%, the international transactions of payment of royalty entered into by it are considered being at arm’s length. 9. It comes up that earlier in the first round of proceedings, the ld. TPO accepted the transaction of provision of call

Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solution Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 739/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountαντ Μεμβer

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Anil Sant

appellant Ground No. 5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO/DRP have erred in rejecting certain functionally comparable companies selected by the Appellant in its TP Study Report for AY 2017-18 solely on the ground of fluctuating margins. Prayer The Appellant prays that ... comparable companies identified by the Appellant in its TP study report should be considered for the purpose of conducting comparability analysis. Ground No. 6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AD/DRP has erred in not allowing the economic adjustment on account of difference

Addl.CIT, Range-03, New Delhi vs. Dayco Power Transmission P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7270/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Kumar Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ambika Aggarwal, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92E

erred in directing to consider the foreign exchange gain/loss as Non-operating while calculating the margin of assessee company as well as comparable companies.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee-company is stated to be engaged in manufacturing and distribution of broad range of timing belt tensioners / FEAD for automotive markets ... comparable with that of assessee-company. 4.2 Similarly, it was contended before the CIT(A) that Simmonds Marshall Ltd. also cannot be treated as comparable company for the determination of ALP owing to Product dissimilarity. This company manufactures fastener such as nuts, bolts and screws which are non-core auto

Ab Sciex Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle Int Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the second issue which was remanded by the

ITA 1969/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 514/Del/2021, (A.Y. 2017-18) Ab Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. Acit Block 33, 46 Marsiling Circle International Taxation Industrial Estate, 1(1)(1) Singapore. 739256 New Delhi Pan: Aanca1192P Appellant Respondent

cost-plus arm's length markup) earned by DHR India being 17% is falling above the arm's length average margin earned by comparable companies. Since the AE has already been remunerated at arm's length, no further profits ought to be attributed.” AB /Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. ACIT ... earned by the DHR India is as 17% as claimed by the Assessee which is falling above the arms length average margin earned by comparable companies. The Assessee has also contended that, AB /Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. ACIT • DHR India has received the following remuneration form AB Sciex w.r.t provision

Ab Sciex Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle Int Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the second issue which was remanded by the

ITA 1968/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 514/Del/2021, (A.Y. 2017-18) Ab Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. Acit Block 33, 46 Marsiling Circle International Taxation Industrial Estate, 1(1)(1) Singapore. 739256 New Delhi Pan: Aanca1192P Appellant Respondent

cost-plus arm's length markup) earned by DHR India being 17% is falling above the arm's length average margin earned by comparable companies. Since the AE has already been remunerated at arm's length, no further profits ought to be attributed.” AB /Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. ACIT ... earned by the DHR India is as 17% as claimed by the Assessee which is falling above the arms length average margin earned by comparable companies. The Assessee has also contended that, AB /Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. ACIT • DHR India has received the following remuneration form AB Sciex w.r.t provision

Ab Sciex Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the second issue which was remanded by the

ITA 514/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 514/Del/2021, (A.Y. 2017-18) Ab Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. Acit Block 33, 46 Marsiling Circle International Taxation Industrial Estate, 1(1)(1) Singapore. 739256 New Delhi Pan: Aanca1192P Appellant Respondent

cost-plus arm's length markup) earned by DHR India being 17% is falling above the arm's length average margin earned by comparable companies. Since the AE has already been remunerated at arm's length, no further profits ought to be attributed.” AB /Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. ACIT ... earned by the DHR India is as 17% as claimed by the Assessee which is falling above the arms length average margin earned by comparable companies. The Assessee has also contended that, AB /Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. ACIT • DHR India has received the following remuneration form AB Sciex w.r.t provision

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and ground nos

ITA 1575/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Torrecid India Private Limited Income Tax- 11(3)(1) Flat No.29, 30,31, Gidc Savli, Aaykar Bhavan, Alindra, Vadodra-Gujarat Vs. Gandhinagar, Gujarat-391775 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct4321M Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Singh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Anand Perampurana, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Anand Perampurana
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 250

transaction.. of import of raw materials and finished goods. 4. Erred in rejecting Nilchem Industries Ltd. and accepting Golden Chemicals Pvt Ltd. as comparable companies to the appellant  On a without prejudice basis, based on the facts and circumstances of the case ... learned Transfer Pricing Officer was also obtained which was replied by the assessee. After discussion and considering the reply of the assessee, six comparable companies were selected whose average PLI was considered as 2.47% and assessee’s PLI was computed at (-) 5.10% and accordingly, transfer pricing adjustment

Nikon India Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1628/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)Section 154Section 92BSection 92C

expenditure as an international transaction, without appreciating that adjusted gross profit margin as well as operating margin of the Appellant was better than the comparable companies. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, AO / DRP / TPO have erred in not appreciating that the Appellant ... could have been levied, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, AO / TPO have erred in cherry picking the comparable companies for purpose of computing the mark-up for the alleged AMP as an international transaction. The DRP further erred in upholding the above action

Jt. CIT (OSD) - 2 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1349/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 1093/मुं/2019 (नि.व. 2012-13)

shares the valuer has adopted multiple methods and has assigned weightage to each of the method for valuation analysis. She further submitted that Comparable Company Multiple(CCM) method was applied by the valuer based on one year and two year forward estimates and has assigned 50% weightage to this method ... said report is available at pages 4 to 54 of the paper book. For the valuation of shares, the Valuer adopted combination of Comparable Companies Multiple (CCM) method and Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method. The Valuer assigned 50% weightage to CCM method and 50% weightage to DCF method. The valuation

Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-58, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1093/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1093/मुं/2019(िन.व. 2012-13) Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaact-4060-A बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Jcit, Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.1349/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Jt.Cit (Osd)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Stree, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ....."ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaact-4060-A अपीलाथ""ारा/Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji & Ms. Aastha Shah, Advocates. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/03/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji and Ms. Aastha Shah, AdvocatesFor Respondent: S/Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR and Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Sr.AR

shares the valuer has adopted multiple methods and has assigned weightage to each of the method for valuation analysis. She further submitted that Comparable Company Multiple(CCM) method was applied by the valuer based on one year and two year forward estimates and has assigned 50% weightage to this method ... said report is available at pages 4 to 54 of the paper book. For the valuation of shares, the Valuer adopted combination of Comparable Companies Multiple (CCM) method and Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method. The Valuer assigned 50% weightage to CCM method and 50% weightage to DCF method. The valuation

India Medtronic P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 1335/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

management and related examine the support services correctness of the margins of 3 comparables. Upon verification and correcting the operating margins of such comparable companies, the margin earned by the assessee was within the revised arm's length range of comparable companies hence, the adjustment was deleted. 4. Alternate adjustment ... assessee is 17.60% on operating revenue (considering the alleged AMP expenses as non- operating) is higher than the range of the margins of the comparable companies considered. The Id AO/ TPO inadvertently did not follow the Hon'ble DRP directions to consider the adjustment as alternate adjustment

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

computational error made by the TPO and recomputed the margin of Hindustan Motors Ltd at 2.71% from 2.87%. Accordingly, mean operating margin of comparable companies mentioned hereinabove was taken at 6.19%. The ld. CIT(A) further restricted the adjustment to the value of international transaction as against adjustment made ... liable to be deleted on the following grounds: (i) Since the difference between operating profit margin of the assessee at 3.85% and that of comparable companies at 6.19% is 2.34%, no TP adjustment is warranted in terms of Proviso 92C(2) of the Act; and (ii) If we look

Servier India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Serdia Pharmaceuticals (I) P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6567/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.6567/मुं/2011 (िन.व. 2005-06) Servier India Private Limited [Formerly Known As Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt.Ltd.] 1703, 17Th Floor, B Wing, Parinee Crescenzo, Plot Nos C-38/39, “G” Block, Behind Mca, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaacs-6696-R ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-7(2), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Advocate With S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik Poddar Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R , सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Advocate with S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik Poddar AdvocatesFor Respondent: S/Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR and Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R
Section 133(6)

Assessment Year 2002-03 was that the APIs manufactured by the AEs are of superior quality as compared to APIs manufactured by comparable companies. Since, there is substantial difference in quality, therefore, CUP cannot be applied. The Co-ordinate Bench while addressing the arguments raised by assessee observed as under

Cbre South Asia (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-5(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9078/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2015-16 Cbre South Asia (P) Ltd. Vs. Acit Ground Floor, Pti Building, Circle- 5 (2) 4 Parliament Street, New Delhi New Delhi-110005 Pan No.Aaacc9308A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Mr. Kshitij Bansal, Ca Respondent By Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2024

Section 143Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

computation of companies selected as comparable and proceeding to make adjustment by considering incorrect margins fo computation of arm's length price; 3.1.4 rejecting comparable companies for not having current year data thereby failed to app provisions of section 92C of the Act read with rule 10CA ... providing the benefit of working capital adjustment to the Appellant disregarding difference in level of working capital assumed by the Appellant vis-à-vis comparable companies. Common ground 4.1 That the Ld. AO erred in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) Act. That the above grounds

Medtronic Engineering and Innovation Center Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 225/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala and Shri Pratik, ARsFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

demonstrated that the working capital differences had impacted its profits; that the segmental working capital is not disclosed in the annual reports of the comparable companies; and that cost of capital is different for different companies. 4. Learned AR submitted that under identical circumstances, the issue of grant of working ... enhancement held that no adjustment should be made to the profit margins on account of working capital differences between the tested party and the comparable companies for the following reasons: (i) The daily working capital levels of the tested party and the comparables was the only reliable basis of determining

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House 6A, Shanti Nagar, Santacruz (East) Mumbai 400 055 Pan – Aaaca3622K Appellant Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai V/S

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL