“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

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

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

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Apm Terminals India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed, holding that the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is barred by limitation and hence quashed

ITA 2511/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi, Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailsandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri Manish Kant and DeveshFor Respondent: Pravin D Salunkhe, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 80ISection 92C

profit as the profit level indicator. The margin of the assessee was considered and compared with three year weighted average margin of the comparable companies for European Nation range and Asia-Pacific region. The margin of the assessee was Page 3 of 6 determined at 5% from European region ... Asia-Pacific region, the margin of the comparable company, after comparison with the margin of the assessee, as per the transfer pricing study report, the assessee submitted it to be at arm’s-length. 6. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer examined the international transactions and ultimately passed an order under

M/S. Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit (Income Tax Dept), Delhi

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

ITA 464/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Assessment Unit (Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Department) App & Bus Centre, 6Th Floor, Delhi Mehra Inudstrial Estate, Vs. Jaswanti Landmark, Lbs Marg, Mumbai-400 079

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: 11.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 260

confirming the action of learned TPO of rejecting the benchmarking analysis using Transaction Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’) conducted by Appellant, based on the comparable companies selected by Appellant thereby making an addition of Rs.6,57,04,938 of the alleged difference in the arm’s length price of the ‘international ... learned DRP erred in determining the arm’s length price of the international transaction by upholding the rejection of all comparable companies selected by the Appellant. The Appellant submits that the following companies should be considered as comparable in determining the arm’s length price of the international transactions

Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 72/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 73

appropriate method [ MAM] for benchmarking research support services. The assessee’s benchmarking shows that assessee has earned a margin of 15%. Assessee selected four comparable companies whose margin operating profit / total cost was 19.57% and therefore, since, the arithmetic mean of comparable prices is within ITA Nos. 72 & 45/Mum/2018 Citigroup ... asked for further details on accepts / reject matrix. The learned Assessing Officer found that assessee has used the data for three years of the comparable company and has taken the weighted average in the accept/ reject matrix. Assessee originally selected 6 companies but rejected two companies having significant related party

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 45/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 73

DCIT- 3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2588/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2587/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2318/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 2317/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No

Avaya India Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 702/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nageshwar Rao; &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)

That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO / Hon’ble DRP have erred, by wrongfully rejecting certain comparable companies from the final set of comparable companies for the purpose of determining the ALP of the subject international transaction on an ad-hoc basis ... thereby resorting to cherry picking of comparable companies. That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO, in particular, erred in not complying with the directions of Hon’ble DRP and rejecting Empower India Private Limited (“Empower”) as comparable company to the Appellant without verifying

Sumitomo Corporation India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi

In the result Appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 486/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

transactions by applying 3.29 per cent commission rate (by first applying 2.92 per cent and then adding 0.37 per cent based on OP/OPEX of comparable companies). While doing so, the Ld. DRP / TPO erred in: 7.1. alleging that the functions performed by the Appellant were far more ... profit level (i.e. OP/OPEX) of such segment to be 12.72 per cent (being the median margin of the set of comparable companies). While doing so, the Ld. DRP / TPO failed to appreciate that the OP/OPEX should be 7 AND STAYNo. 22/Del/2022 Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., ND determined using

Karcher Cleaning Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT Spl. Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposed

ITA 4986/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)

Transactional Net Margin Method (“TNMM”) to determine the arm’s length price (“ALP”) of international transaction undertaken by the Appellant; 3.6 disregarding certain comparable companies selected by the Appellant in its TP documentation, on frivolous grounds; 3.7 conducting / upholding the fresh comparability analysis based on the application of erroneous additional ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. C1T(A) / Ld. AO / Ld. TPO have erred in including certain companies in the final set of comparable companies despite the fact that those companies fail the related party transaction filter of 25 per cent; 9. That on the facts and circumstances

Haier Appliances India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, It & Tp Delhi 2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 417/DEL/2022[2017-148]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2017-148

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92BSection 92F

measure of intensity of AMP function. 19. Without prejudice to any other grounds. Intensity adjustment used to adjust net profit margin of comparable companies purportedly to equalise functions, appears to be mere mirror image of already invalidated Bright Line Test (BLT) adopting same ratio, rationale and parameters 20. Without prejudice

Ups Express Private Limited (Formerly Known As Ups Jetair Express Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT 3(1) (1) Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/ITO/NFAC-Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Ups Express Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Ups Jetair Dcit-3(1)(1) Express Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 6-A, Shyam Off Jvlr, Majas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Village, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai-400060 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu4322N Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Dhiraj Kumar

Section 131

most the appropriate method adopting profit level indicator of operating profit to operating income, taking itself as the tested party and indentified 7 comparable companies. The assessee‟s profit level indicator is 9.47%, PLI of seven comparable companies adopting three year weighted average net profit margin falls into the range ... independent party would have agreed to bear these transactions without mark up. Accordingly, the ld. TPO held that as the margin of comparable companies is 3.34%, the mark up on the detail expenditure requires an adjustment of ₹ 74,78,465/- of total expenditure of ₹ 22.39 crore, the order u/s 92CA

DCIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. M/S. Reservation Data Maintenance India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5351/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia

Section 92C(2)

relied upon by the Ld. AR. Respectfully following the above decision the TPO is directed to exclude M/s. Accentia from the final list of comparable companies. 4.2.3 TCS E-Serve International Ltd & TCS E-serve Ltd - These companies have also been selected by the TPO. In this regard ... above decision the TPO is directed to exclude M/s TCS E-Serve International Ltd. & M/s. TCS E-serve Ltd from the final list of comparable companies. “ 6. On careful reading of the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the findings

Rosoboronservice (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground number 2 – 6 [ except 4, of the appeal are restored to the file of the learned AO/TPO to benchmark the international transaction afresh by selecting first the A

ITA 7255/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Rosoboronservice (India) Limited Income Tax-15(3)(1) R-700, Ttc Industrial Estate, Room No. 473, Aayakar P.O. Ghansoli, Midc Rabale, Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400701 Bhawan, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcr0040B Assessee By : Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

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

erred in violating the principle of natural justice by not providing any information/ details of the filters applied while arriving at his set of comparable companies. 5. Inappropriate approach adopted by the learned AO/ DRP/TPO for benchmarking A.Y.2014-15 M/s Rosoboronservice (India) Ltd 5.1. The learned AO/ DRP/ TPO has erred ... cherry picking the comparable companies for benchmarking the international transaction of the Appellant. 5.2. The learned AO/ DRP/ TPO erred in selecting comparable companies which are functionally different from the functional profile of the Appellant. Further, that the companies chosen by the learned AO/ DRP/ TPO for benchmarking differ significantly

Delphi Automotive Systems (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 1361/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaaptive Components India P. Ltd, Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Formerly Known As Delphi Of Income-Tax, Automotive Systems P. Ltd), Circle-7(1), P-24, Green Park Extension, New Delhi South Delhi, New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacd0226E

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(2)

Panel (DRP) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the action of the TPO in considering following companies in the final set of comparable companies allegedly holding them to be functionally comparable to the appellant: i. e-Infochips Bangalore Limited ii. E-Zest Solutions Limited iii. Infinite Data Systems ... Consultant India Limited are comparable to the business support service segment of the appellant, it ought not be rejected from the final set of comparable companies. 3.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in sustaining the action of the TPO in considering following companies as comparable

Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 1654/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

rejecting companies based on unreasonable comparability criteria. 10. The ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP erred in law and in facts, by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the assessee for having different accounting year (i.e. companies having accounting year other than March 31 or companies whose financial statements were ... crore as a comparability criterion. 13. The ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP have erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the assessee as having economic performance contrary to the industry behavior (e.g. companies which showed a diminishing revenue trend

Schindler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7493/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 271(1)(c)

Indigenization Cost. 3 ITA NO.7493/MUM/2014 (A.Y.2005-06) The TPO rejected the adjustments made by the assessee, and applied operating profit margin of selected comparable companies at 4.21%. As against the total expenses shown by the assessee at Rs.76,24,40,768/-, the TPO determined the value of expenditure at Rs.52