“comparable companies”

Kadimi Special Steels Private Limited(Amalgamated With Kadimi Tool Manufacturing Company Private Limited), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

In the result, Appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

granting the capacity utilization adjustment carried out by the appellant for differences in the depreciation levels of the tested party and the comparable companies which is in contravention to the provisions of Rule 10B(3) of the Rules, since the appellant was in its second full year of operations Application

Lockheed Martin India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.960/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Lockheed Martin India Pvt. Ltd., Act, The Grand Plaza, The Grand Hotel, Vs. Circle 15(2), Nelson Mandela Marg, C.R. Building, Vasant Kunj, Phase-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aabcl4556E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

coordinate bench in assessee’s own case, we direct the Ld. TPO to decide about the comparability of the arm’s segment of the comparable companies with the assessee” [para 19 in this order]. 5 c) The assessee has also challenged the introduction of Global Procurement Consultants ... quarrel that the assessee has a cost plus business model operating in a low risk or almost risk mitigated involvement as compared to the comparable companies who are independent service providers and bear significant reasons. 50. In our considered opinion, the assessee is very much entitled for risk adjustment accordingly

Brown- Forman Worldwide Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Int, Taxation, Gurgaon

Bench: Shrichalla Nagendra Prasad & Shri Amitabh Shukla

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in arbitrarily rejecting 18 out of 19 functionally comparable companies, selected by the Appellant in its transfer pricing report, without providing any detailed rejection reasons. 2.4. That on the facts and circumstances ... case and law, the AO/ DRP/TPO have erred in incorrectly computing the working capital adjusted margins of the comparable companies. 2.4.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in considering miscellaneous expenses, deferred revenue expenditure written off, festival celebration expenses

Idemitsu Lube India Private Limited, Panvel, Maharashtra vs. DCIT Circle 10(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhidemitsu Lube India Dcit Private Limited,Plotno.31, Circle 10(1) Additional Patalganga, Vs. New Delhi M.I.D.C. Industrial Area, Talukapanvel, Khalapur, Raigad, Maharashtra- 410220 Pan-Aabci5684A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Katan K. Ved, Ca Respondent Sh. S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr By Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 Order

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO has erred in computing the margins of the comparable companies incorrectly without any basis whatsoever or considering the updated margins provided by the Appellant (available on record) based on specific request of Ld. TPO himself ... loss) as operating in nature for the purpose of calculation of operating profit margin relating to 'manufacturing segment'. 1.6.2 Erroneously rejecting the following functionally comparable companies selected by the Appellant in its TP Study: 'Gandhar Oil Refinery India Ltd.', 'GPPetroleums Ltd.' and 'Tashkent Oil Company Pvt. Ltd.'. 1.6.3 Arbitrarily selecting

Erm India Private Limited, Gurugram vs. Assessment Unit (Jao- DCIT, Circle 7(1), Delhi)

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shriyogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5459/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Erm India Private Limited, Assessment Unit, 3Rd Floor, Tower B, Building No.10, Vs. Income Tax Department, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Ii, (Jurisdictional Ao: Deputy Gurugram, Haryana. Commissioner Of Income-Tax), Pan No.Aaace1502C Circle 7(1), Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

erred in ignoring the TNMM analysis submitted to demonstrate that higher margins were earned by the Appellant and vis-a-vis third-party comparable companies even after undertaking the working capital adjustment. 2.5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/TPO/DRP erred in ignoring ... Appellant was computed at 18.03 percent, which is higher than arm’s length margin i.e. the mean of the comparable set of 4 comparable companies computed at 4.82 percent. 4 1.3 Ld. TPO accepted the arm’s length nature of all the principal international transactions of the Appellant relating

Giesecke and Devrient India Pvt Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT (OSD), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19

filters for identifying companies comparable to the Appellant. 14. On the facts and in law, the TPO/AO/ DRP grossly erred in not accepting the comparable companies proposed by the Appellant, as the said comparable companies met the FAR (functions performed, assets employed and risk assumed) test as envisaged under Rule ... arbitrary filters for identifying companies comparable to the Appellant. 22. On the facts and in law, the TPO/AO/DRP grossly erred in not accepting the comparable companies proposed by the Appellant, as the said comparable companies met the FAR (functions performed, assets employed and risk assumed) test as envisaged under Rule

Spectris Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shriyogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3742/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Spectris Technologies P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, 201-B, Second Floor, Vs. Ward-9(1), Park Centra, Sector-30, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan No.Aagcs6654R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions under Trading of spare parts (AMC) segment. 3.3 Not accepting comparable companies selected by the Appellant in its TP documentation even when such companies were functionally comparable to the Appellant; 3.4 Conducting a fresh search for companies ... selected was OP/OC. As per reported benchmarking analysis the results of tested party as per segmental accounts was 4.51% as against average result of comparable companies of 5.69%. As regards Segment 1 i.e., Annual Maintenance Services the most appropriate method selected was RPM and PLI of gross margin/selling price

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Exxon Mobil Lubricants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

method in the TP study and additional analysis using RPM was submitted at the time of TP proceedings. For RPM, the Respondent identified comparable companies engaged in the trading of lubricants and it was proved that the said transaction was at ALP vide submissions dated August 05, 2008 (refer page ... Further, the Respondent conducted a benchmarking study to identify companies engaged in providing general management consulting and administrative services. The operating margin of the comparable companies was computed at 7.14% as against 5% charged by the AE. Based on the above analysis, the international transactions related to payment of service

Marks and Spencer (India) Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

analysis submitted by the assessee without providing any cogent reason. 9. Based on the above, the TPO arrived at a set of 3 comparable companies with arm’s length rate as 3.92%. Consequently, the TPO proposed a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.6,21,87,194 to the income ... suffers from limitations in relation to identifying what type of rights or services are provided 8 by the AEs of the comparable companies. Thus, rate of royalty determined by Ld. TPO using such data is erroneous, inappropriate and not in line with settled principles of transfer pricing