“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

Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2014/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO has erred in making a substantive addition by adjusting the profit margins of the comparable companies for differences in intensity of AMP functions and comparing them with the results achieved by the assessee for arm's length testing purposes. In doing ... Other Expenses/ Sales" ratio, which has no legal sanction under the Indian TP provisions; 2.2. erroneously computing the intensity of functions undertaken by the comparable companies by a mere comparison of "Other expenses! Sales" ratio and thereby disregarding the qualitative functional comparability test for selection of potential comparable companies

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-4, Bangalore

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

ITA 2588/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr

that the assessee sought to exclude. The DRP agreed with exclusion of two comparables i.e. Infosys Ltd. and Megasoft Ltd. out of the several comparable companies argued by the assessee. 2.5 In an appeal filed before this Tribunal in IT(TP)A No. 1461/Bang/2010 vide order dated 28/07/2017 remanded ... fresh decision because as per the directions of DRP also, the decision of DRP is only with regard to 2 comparable companies i.e., Infosys Ltd., and Megasoft Limited and there is no decision of DRP regarding other comparable companies. ……………… ……………... 5. From the above Para reproduced, from the directions

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Canvasm Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3980/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Basakaran & Shri Rahul Chaudharydy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Tech Mahindra Income Tax 2(3)(1), Limited, R.No.552, Aayakar Bhavan, (Successor In Interest To M.K. Road, M/S. Canvasm Mumbai – 400 020 Technologies Ltd.), Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan Aaccc8665N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Viral Shah. Revenue By : Mr. Samruddhi Dhyananjay Hande, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Viral ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Samruddhi Dhyananjay

Margin Method (TNMM) as Most Appropriate Method (MAM) and Operating Margin to Operating Revenue (OM/OR) as “Profit level indicator” (PLI). The assessee selected nine comparable companies whose average margin of operating margin was 2.38%. The operating margin declared by the assessee 4 was 3.70%. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that ... length price of the same as NIL. 4.8 With regard to receipt of Rs.18.19 Crores for software development services, the TPO selected his own comparable companies, whose average margin was 28.90%. According to this margin, the transfer pricing adjustment was required to be computed at Rs.15.40 crores. Since

Swiss Re Services India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed protanto

ITA 1898/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1898/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) M/S. Swiss Re Services India P. Ltd. Unit 701-702, Peninsula Corporate Park Tower A, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aahcs5626E बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle 2(3)(2) Room No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent M K Marg, Mumbai 400020 अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Adv& Shri Hiten Chande, Adv ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Akhtar Ansari, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Adv&For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ansari, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)

Rs.37.49 crores is included as operating income, the operating margin would works out to 42.94% as against the operating margin of 14.36% of the comparable companies and therefore the transactions of the assessee with it's A.E's would be at arms length requiring no adjustment to the income ... assessee remit the issue to the file, of TPO. If the contention of the assessee that the operating margin is comparable with that of comparable companies is found correct, no adjustment to ALP transaction is required. Since this ground has been decided in favour of the assessee and in view

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 292/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

DRP/AOTTPO erred by applying the following quantitative and qualitative filters: a) The learned DRP/AO/TPO have erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting certain comparable companies having different accounting year/ financial year (i.e., companies having accounting year other than March 31 or companies whose financial statements were for a period ... Technologies Limited xv. R Systems International Limited b) The learned AO/ TPO/ DRP erred, in law and in facts, in rejecting the following comparable companies selected by the Appellant in its TP documentation even though the companies are functionally comparable to the Appellant: i. Evoke Technologies Limited ii. Sankhya Infotech

Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 224/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

cost may not be appropriate and the bundled approach is relevant. The TPO computed the estimated percentage of AMP expenses incurred by the comparable companies @ 5.94% and accordingly worked out the excess AMP expenses incurred by the assessee as Rs.35,24,45,858 holding the same towards DEMPE function ... stating that to – • Reduce 25% of the distributors commission from the AMP expenses. • Verify and rectify the AMP expenses of the comparable companies. • Exclude Killicks Agencies from the comparable list in AMP segment. 6. The TPO passed an order giving effect the median margin was recomputed

Microsemi India Private Limited (Now Merged With Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 211/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

Cost) Rs. 8,93,65,745/- Operating/Net mark-up (OP/OC) 15% 4. Comparables selected and the range of weighted average of OP/TC of comparable companies by the assessee is as follows:- Sl. Company Name Weighted No. Average (in %) 1. Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. 1.44 2. Sankhya Infotech ... selecting the companies comparable to the Assessee. In this regard, it is submitted that application of turnover filter is a relevant criteria in choosing comparable companies. It is submitted that the difference in the scale of operations have a direct impact on the profitability. The concept of economies of scale

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited( Formerly Known As Symphoney Teleca Corporation India Private Limited), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 631/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.631/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Harman Connected Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) Services Corporation India V. Bangalore. Private Limited (Formerly Symphony Telca Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.) No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Survey No.85 & 86, Sadarmangala Village, K.R.Puram, Hobli Bangalore – 560 066 Pan : Aabcg5658E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Software Development Services To Its Group Companies As Well As Third Parties. For The Assessment Year 2011-2012, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2011 Declaring Gross Total

For Appellant: Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

pricing study. The turnover reflected by the assessee company is Rs.290.45 crore (sic Rs.332 crore). On this basis, the TPO is directed to exclude comparable companies having turnover of more than Rs.2000 Crores.” 9. Further, the learned DR’s plea that the multiple of 10 times of the turnover should ... Acusis Software (I) P. Ltd. V. ITO in ITA No.223/2017, judgment dated 14.08.2018, has taken the view that if the turnover of a comparable company is less or more than 10 times the turnover of the assessee, then it cannot be considered as a comparable company. The ld. DR drew

M/S Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payers Unit (Ltu) Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 3250/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3250/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80G

TPO/DRP in the comparable set. 9.3 Ld. TPO have erred. in law and facts, by arriving at different operating margins for the following 6 comparable companies while giving effect to DRP directions vis-a-vis the operating margins arrived in the order under section 92CA(5) read with Section ... should be excluded from the comparable set. 10.5 Ld. AO/TPO have erred, in law and in facts, in determining the operating margin of the comparable company 'I C R A Management Consulting Services Ltd' as 5.10% on operating cost vis-a-vis 4.31% on operating cost as per the Appellant

Sheetal Clothing Co Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1109/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

taken two textile giants, viz., M/s Aditya Birla Fashion and M/s Future Lifestyle Fashions as comparable companies. It is submitted that the assessee is a small time whole sale trader, while the above said two companies are into retail business having retail outlets all over the Country. Further, the turnover ... turnover of the assessee company is ranging from 10 to 15 crores. Accordingly, it was submitted that these two companies cannot be taken as comparable companies. 27. We agree with the above said submissions made by Ld A.R. First of all, in our view, there is no reason to reject

Sheetal Clothing Co Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1108/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

S. Vinodkumar Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5710/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S S. Vinodkumar Diamonds Dy. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Office No. Bw-3010 Circle 5(3), Vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics5514N Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt & Shri Sankit Chordia, Ars’ Revenue By : Shri Samuel Pitta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt &For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta, DR

Section 92Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

receivables on the profitability and that OP/OC margin of the appellant are substantially higher than arithmetic mean of working capital adjusted OP/OC margin of comparable companies and hence, any further transfer pricing adjustment on the pretext of outstanding receivable is unwarranted and wholly unjustified. 2.1.7 in not granting

Symantec Software Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 565/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & M/S Symantec Software Vs. Dcit, Circle – 14(3)(2) Solutions Pvt Ltd Mumbai. Unit No. 1801, 18Th Floor The Capital, Plot No. 70, G Block, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2624B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Rignesh Das.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Hon’Ble Tribunal Has Passed Ma No. 73 & 74/Mum/2021 In The Common Order Of Ita Nos. 565/Mum/2016 & 1906/Mum/2017 Dated 15.09.2017. The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Ma Has Considered The Assessee’S

For Appellant: Shri.Nikhil Tiwari.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Rignesh Das.DR

pressed Ground No. 3 and 4 expecting that once it gets the relief in Ground No. 3 and 4 the arithmetic mean of comparable companies will be within the range of 5% and there won’t be any necessity for arm’s length price adjustment in this case. Since ... acceptability of the methods used for such analysis. The assessee has not established the requirement of working capital adjustment specifically in the case of comparable company. The working capital adjustment explain the need while the assessee working out PLI by excluding the interest cost from operating cost and as well

Wissen Infotech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 329/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 92C

/TPO erred in not giving full effect to the directions of Ld. DRP in respect of including the company Cigniti Technologies Limited as a comparable company in computation of operating margin of comparable companies, which resulted in excess marign of 2.55% (i.e. 27.37% less 24.82%) and thereby making an excess ... Bradstreet report under the category of small firms. Accordingly, based on the above discussion. the Assessee wishes to submit that the following comparable companies should not be accepted as comparable companies since the sales turnover for all these companies exceed the upper limit of INR 200 crores: S.No. Company Name

Wissen Infotech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 1820/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 92C

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1954/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

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

upholding / confirming the action of the learned AO/TPO in rejecting the without prejudice contention of the Appellant to compute the margin of alleged comparable companies based on multiple year financial data, without appreciating the facts of the case and without providing cogent reasons. Intra-group administrative services: Siemens Limited (Successor

Wns Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa Faceless Assessment Centre, Dilhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

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

third party valuation expert. As per the valuation report, the values of shares have been determined using income method (DCF Method) and Market Method (Comparable Companies Method). In valuation 50% weightage was assigned to both the methods. 11. Here-in-below, we are narrating the submissions of the assessee ... Assistance division. Accordingly revised enterprise value of WNS UK under DCF was determined at USD 153.80 million Revised valuation under Market approach (Comparable companies method) The learned TPO contended that since the enterprise value as per DCF has reduced from USD 283 million to USD 153.80 million the value under

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.283/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Hp India Sales Private Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner No.24, Salarpuria Arena Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Hosur Main Road Adugodi Bengaluru – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Arun Kumar, Cit(Tp)-2-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 28.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 13 Grounds In Its Memorandum Of Appeal Dated 22.06.2022. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing, Did Not Raise Any Specific Plea With Regard To Grounds 1 To 5, 10, 12 & 13 (Also Sub-Grounds), Hence, The Same Are Dismissed. The Surviving Grounds, Namely, Grounds 6 To 9, 11 & Its Sub-Grounds, Read As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Arun Kumar, CIT(TP)-2-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92B

Without prejudice to the legal arguments on AMP, the learned DRP / AO/ TPO has erred in carrying out a search for identifying comparable companies in order to determine the mark-up that the Assessee should have recovered from the AE in relation to the alleged AMP expenses considered ... Indian entity has satisfied the TNMM i.e. the operating margins of the Indian enterprise are much higher than the operating margins of the comparable companies, no further separate adjustment for AMP expenditure was warranted. This is also in consonance with Rule 10B which mandates only arriving at the net profit

Excellence Data Research Private Limited, Hyderabad, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 461/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) –Ld. DR

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

Rules') and undertaking a fresh economic analysis during the course of assessment proceedings and thereby making an adjustment to the international transactions. Selection of comparable companies 4. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP erred in accepting the following as comparable ... Eclerx Services Limited; c. Infosys BPO Limited; d. TCS e-service Limited; and e) Crossdomain Solutions Private Limited. Error in computation of margin of comparable companies 6. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP erred in confirming the TPO's stand

Rothschild (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1557/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

appropriate method and “Operating profit by Operating revenue” as Profit level indicator (PLI). The assessee has declared PLI at 17.07%. The assessee selected five comparable companies, whose main mean PLI was 12.94%. Hence the assessee claimed before the learned TPO that its international transactions are at arms’ length ... accept the transfer pricing study conducted by the assessee. He accepted only one comparable companies that was selected by the assessee. The TPO selected finally following comparables whose mean PLI was 26.93%. Sr No Name of the comparable Weighted Avg. (OP/OR) (%) 1 ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. (1.88) 2 Brescon