“comparable companies”

Standard Chartered Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

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

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

method as most appropriate method. The TPO noticed that the assessee has used multiple year date and computed weighted average mean of margins of comparable companies selected by the assessee. The TPO did not accept the same. He adopted current year data of the comparable companies, whose arithmetical mean worked ... this segment, which was also confirmed by Ld CIT(A). 4. The Ld A.R submitted that though the assessee has sought exclusion of three comparable companies, yet exclusion of one company, viz., Birla Global Asset Finance Co Ltd would be sufficient, since its exclusion will make the international transactions

Oxford University Press, Mumbai vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2327/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2018-19) Oxford University Press, 22 Workspace, 2Nd Floor, 1/22 Ansari Road, New Delhi, Delhi – 110 002 Pan: Aaaco-3278-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle -3(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point,Mumbai 400 007. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rishabh Malhotra ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2023

appellant the benefit of working capital adjustment on account of the differences in the working capital position of the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparable companies.” 3. Shri Rishabh Malhotra appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is a branch of Oxford University Press

Lintas India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

accordance with the agreement. Further, a detailed search process including the search strings applied, databases used, accept/reject matrix and margin computation of the comparable companies was submitted before the ld. TPO during the scrutiny proceedings. 7. Multinational Client Coordination Services – MNC 7.1 The services rendered by the AEs to assessee ... assessee in accordance with the agreement. Further, a detailed search process including the search strings applied, database used, accept/reject matrix and margin computation of comparable companies was submitted before the ld. TPO. 7.2 The TPO rejected the bench marking done by the assessee. The TPO held that the assessee failed

ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Avana Integrated Systems Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/S. Avana Integrated 1(1)(1), Systems Ltd., Room No.579, Vs. Bombay House, Aayakar Bhavan, 24, Homi Mody Street, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadct 1062F (Appellant) (Respondent)

comparable. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the DRP erred by adopting different yardstick for undertaking functional analysts of comparable companies namely Engineers India Ltd, Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd, and Mahindra Consulting Engineers Ltd. by testing them against a very high degree of comparability ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, consequent to the directions of Hon'ble DRP, if a single comparable company is retained, then, the same cannot be considered as bad in law, 4 CO No.37/M/2016 M/s. Avana Integrated Systems Ltd. 3. On the facts and circumstances

Paramount Shipping and Management P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

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

assessee has shown net profit (PLI) of 5%. The TPO noticed that the assessee has prepared transfer pricing study by selecting financial data of comparable companies for the year ending 31.3.2007. Hence, he asked the assessee for furnish comparable companies with the current financial year data i.e. the year ending ... Offshore 36.42 19,05 17.37 91.18% W I shipyard 35.53 38.88 -3.35 -8.62% The assessee noticed that the above said margin of comparable companies has been computed excluding depreciation. Accordingly the assessee re- computed its PLI by excluding depreciation and the same worked out to 13.83%. 3. The TPO noticed

DCIT C.C. 3(2) `, Mumbai vs. M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Transfer pricing officer under Transactional Net Margin Method, since the said profit rate is at par with the rate of profit declared by the comparable companies. He submitted that, in the following cases, the Tribunal has restricted the addition to 2% of the value of purchases:- (a) Suman Gupta ... receipt of materials can be judged on comparing the manufacturing loss. The gross profit rate declared by the assessee vis-à-vis other comparable companies is another measure to judge the genuineness of purchases. If an assessee has introduced bogus bills without actually receiving the materials, then the natural tendency

DCIT C.C. 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Transfer pricing officer under Transactional Net Margin Method, since the said profit rate is at par with the rate of profit declared by the comparable companies. He submitted that, in the following cases, the Tribunal has restricted the addition to 2% of the value of purchases:- (a) Suman Gupta ... receipt of materials can be judged on comparing the manufacturing loss. The gross profit rate declared by the assessee vis-à-vis other comparable companies is another measure to judge the genuineness of purchases. If an assessee has introduced bogus bills without actually receiving the materials, then the natural tendency

M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent . Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Transfer pricing officer under Transactional Net Margin Method, since the said profit rate is at par with the rate of profit declared by the comparable companies. He submitted that, in the following cases, the Tribunal has restricted the addition to 2% of the value of purchases:- (a) Suman Gupta ... receipt of materials can be judged on comparing the manufacturing loss. The gross profit rate declared by the assessee vis-à-vis other comparable companies is another measure to judge the genuineness of purchases. If an assessee has introduced bogus bills without actually receiving the materials, then the natural tendency

M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Tax Cent. Circle-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Transfer pricing officer under Transactional Net Margin Method, since the said profit rate is at par with the rate of profit declared by the comparable companies. He submitted that, in the following cases, the Tribunal has restricted the addition to 2% of the value of purchases:- (a) Suman Gupta ... receipt of materials can be judged on comparing the manufacturing loss. The gross profit rate declared by the assessee vis-à-vis other comparable companies is another measure to judge the genuineness of purchases. If an assessee has introduced bogus bills without actually receiving the materials, then the natural tendency

Sabre Travel Network (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvk-Vk-La- 7380@Eaqcbz@2018 ¼Fu-Oa- 2014&15½ Sabre Travel Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. Urmi Estate, 14Th Floor, 96, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (West) Mumbai-400 013 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaaca4836H Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cc-8 (1) (2), Room No.625, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

made submissions only in respect of ground no. 2.7 and 2.11, the same read as under: “2.7 The learned DCIT/DRP erred in selecting the comparable companies, which are functionally dissimilar. 2.11 The learned DCIT/DRP erred in confirming the separate transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2 crores without relying on the entity

Cnh Industrial (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle 6(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Cnh Industrial (Ind) Pvt. Ltd Level04, Rectangle-1, D4 Acit, Central Circle 6(3) District Center, Commercial Mumbai Vs. Complex Saket, South Delhi, Delhi 110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaci3922Q

under Section 92CA(3) of the Act to the international transaction of 'Export of tractors and parts'. 3. Erroneous rejection and selection of comparable companies 3.1 On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/AO, and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in rejecting ... conducting a methodical search as required in accordance with Rules 10B and Rule 10C of the Rules, thereby resorting to cherry-picking of comparable companies. -violating the provisions of Rule 10B(2) by introducing new companies as comparable to the Appellant without establishing their functional comparability. 4. Erroneous application

Sulzer Pumps India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt/Dy/ Asstt/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. Addl./Joint/Dy./Acit/Ito Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha National E-Assessment Centre Delhi Thane-Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha Thane-Belapur Road Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent)

party Page No. | 5 ITA NO. 593/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) M/s. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd comparable agreements w.r.t trademark fees, (iii) Single year comparable companies margin for FY 20 1 1 -12, (iv) Calculation of operating margin of Sulzer India for FY 2011-12, (v) Description of services

Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

comparable for benchmarking without providing the search process 8. erred in accepting the action of the learned TPO of selecting a set of comparable companies without providing the Appellant with the detailed search process, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, Use of single year data for computing operating margins