“comparable companies”

Juniper Networks India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Central Circle-2(4), Mumabi

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blejuniper Networks India Private Limited V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2(4) Unit 103, Platina, 1St Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Plot No. C-59, G-Block Old Cgo Annexe Bandra Kurla Complex Maharishi Karve Road Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacj8542K (Appellant) (Respondent)

which assessee has brought on recorded various marking services carried on by the assessee and assessee has selected Spectrum Business Solutions Limited as a comparable company. Page No. | 9 Juniper Networks India Private Limited 14. Further, he brought to our notice Page No. 416 of the Paper Book which ... could be safely concluded that it is not merely the service rendering company. We also find from the Annual report of the said comparable companies that the company is acting as agent for various foreign principals for sale of dredges, dredging equipment, steerable rudder, propellers, maritime and aviation lighting, acoustic

Fedex Express International B.V., Mumbai vs. ACIT( International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Indian AEs with the assessee, are at arm’s length price wherein the mean margin determined based on five M/s. Fedex Express International B.V. comparable companies in the case of both Indian AEs was 2.85% of income while the assessee has remunerated at a higher margin of 4% on their

Fedex Express International B.V., Mumbai vs. ACIT( International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Indian AEs with the assessee, are at arm’s length price wherein the mean margin determined based on five M/s. Fedex Express International B.V. comparable companies in the case of both Indian AEs was 2.85% of income while the assessee has remunerated at a higher margin of 4% on their

Sas Institute (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Sas Institute (India) Private Tax, Circle 3(3) Limited Apeejay House, 3 Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 3, Dinshaw Wachha Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3149K Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U.Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023

payment of royalty and software licensing revenue sharing. M/s SAS Institute (India) Private Ltd; A.Y. 2009-10 6. Erred by not considering the comparable companies provided by the Appellant engaged in software distribution services Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, erred by not considering comparable companies engaged ... software licensing revenue segment i.e. royalty and software licensing revenue sharing transactions. 7. Inappropriate use of single year and non- contemporaneous financial data of comparable companies for transfer pricing analysis Erred in considering the operating margins on operating revenue of the comparable companies based on the financial data pertaining only

Sabre Travel Network (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

process adopted by the learned TPO to replace benchmarking of the international transaction of the Appellant. 8. The learned AO erred in selecting the comparable companies which are functionally dissimilar 9. The learned AO erred in selecting the comparable companies with abnormal margins. 10. The learned AO erred in selecting

Eos Power India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

also challenged the approach of the lower authorities to compare the expenses of intra group services as percentile of sales based on comparable companies. Accordingly, the learned Authorized Representative stated that the orders of the lower authorities deserves to be quashed. 011. The learned Departmental Representative extensively referred ... distributor. Further, determination of Arm‟s Length Price of marketing support services by applying the proportionate sales percentage based on the sale of comparable companies is also not a correct approach for the reasoning nature of the services rendered by Associated Enterprises to the assessee was not demonstrated

Eos Power India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

also challenged the approach of the lower authorities to compare the expenses of intra group services as percentile of sales based on comparable companies. Accordingly, the learned Authorized Representative stated that the orders of the lower authorities deserves to be quashed. 011. The learned Departmental Representative extensively referred ... distributor. Further, determination of Arm‟s Length Price of marketing support services by applying the proportionate sales percentage based on the sale of comparable companies is also not a correct approach for the reasoning nature of the services rendered by Associated Enterprises to the assessee was not demonstrated

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

services under DCA and making modifications to this analysts in a subjective arbitrary and inconsistent manner. Accept Reject criteria adopted while selecting comparables companies 7. Erred in applying the accept reject criteria/ filters in an arbitrary, subjective, inconsistent and erroneous manner for the purpose of selection of comparables. 8. Erred ... Appellant. 11. Erred in modifying the method for computing related party transactions filter for selection of comparables for the IT services segment. Rejection of comparable companies 12. Erred in accepting Infosys Limited as comparable for benchmarking the IT services transaction disregarding the fact that the company is functionally different from

Oracle Financial Services Software Limited (Formerly Known As I-Flex Solutions Limited), Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

materials. The ld CIT(A) rejected the approach of the TPO in selecting foreign AEs as tested parties. The Ld CIT(A) examined the comparable companies selected by the assessee and held that only 11 companies (out of 43 companies) selected by the assessee are comparable with the assessee ... record. We noticed that the TPO, after holding that the foreign AEs should be taken as “tested parties” have selected three unknown Indian comparable companies. Accordingly, he has held that the assessee should have remunerated the AEs at Cost plus 10% margin. Admittedly, the above said approach

Qad India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is disposed off as being general in nature, Ground No. 2 relating to selection of comparables is partly allowed in terms of paragraph 5 to 6

Software companies would be largely influenced by its goodwill/brand name and other intellectual property and such companies ought to be rejected, and 2.3.6 rejecting comparable companies selected in the TP documentation on arbitrary reasons. 2 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... erred in upholding the decision of the Learned AO in considering financial data of only the current year (FY 2009-10) of the comparable companies instead of multiple year data to be used for benchmarking the Appellant's international transaction. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Dhl Logistics P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhl Logistics Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, 201A, Silver Centre Utopia, Cardinal Gracias Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Road, Chakala, Assistant Commissioner Andheri (East) Of Income Tax/Income Mumbai – 400099 Tax Officer, National E- Assessment Centre Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm6824H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/ Darshan Dalal Respondent By : Jayant B Jhaveri Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Drp-1), Mumbai, Dated 15.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Order Dated 1 November 2019 Passed By The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing)-1(2)(2), Mumbai ('Ld. Tpo) Under Section 92Ca Of The Act Is Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 92Ca(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act), Thus Making The Transfer Pricing Order & Resultant Final Assessment Order Dated 30 April 2021 Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Null & Void & Liable To Be Quashed. The Following Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Ground 1 Above.

thereby enhancing the cost base for the purpose of computing the operating margin (OP/TC) of the assessee. 4.4 disregarding all comparable companies selected by the Appellant in its TP documentation. 4.5 including Om Logistics Limited which is a functionally incomparable company in the final set of comparable companies. The Appellant