“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

It Expressway Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1040/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

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

ACIT Cir 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Merck Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1798/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S. Merk Limited Godrej One, 8Th Floor, Dcit 7(2)(1) Pirojshanagar , Range 7(2)(1) Eastern Express Highway Vs. Mumbai Vikhroli(E) Mumbai-400 079 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Merk Limited Acit Cir 7(2)(1) R.No. 573, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate A Dr. Bhavan, M.K. Road, A.B. Road, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace2616F Assessee By : Ms. Arativissanji, Ms. Astha Shah Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022

For Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

chemicals. The margin of the assessee in pharma segment is 13.10% whereas the margin of chemical business is 19.89%. For pharmaceutical, assessee identified 98 comparable companies whose average margin was 11.32% and 13 companies for chemical segment where the margin was 5.18%. As the margin of the assessee computed

Merck Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1525/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 40A(2)

COMPUTATION OF ALP 4. The lower authorities have erred in : a. Rejecting M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd as a comparable, on the ground that the comparable company is engaged in only manufacture of Car and it is a persistently loss making company; b. Inappropriately computing operating margins of the Appellant ... providing the computation of revised TP adjustment pursuant to DRP Directions and not appropriately computing the operating margin of the Appellant and the comparables companies 5. The lower authorities have erred in : a. Not making proper adjustment for enterprise level and transactional level differences between the Appellant and the comparable

Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 2976/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. V. Balaji (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) – Ld. DR

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

brand building exercise for AE as done in last year. 4.2 The assessee submitted that the AMP expenses were less than that of comparable companies and there was no legal basis for this adjustment. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Cactus Communication Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1491/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Pratik ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

right in allowing the appeal of the assessee and excluding Excel Infoways Ltd from the comparable list without appreciating the fact that the comparable company is engaged in the business of providing BPO/IT enabled services only and is broadly functionally comparable to assessee ?" 2. "Whether ... company." 4. "Whether or not on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the comparable company M/s. Excel Infoways Ltd., by holding that the company has earned super normal profits during the year without appreciating the fact that the company

Abbott India Ltd (As Successor to Solvay Pharma India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1705/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Abott India Limited Addl. Cit-Range 7(2) Unit 3-4, Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Vs. Marg, Mumbai-400 071. Mumbai-400 020 Pan No. Aaacu 9269 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

Appeals) also erred in not considering the submissions made by assessee to controvert the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) observations in respect of the comparable companies. 3:3 The learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the operating margin earned by the assessee ... significantly higher than the arithmetic mean of 6.57% of the comparable companies (as calculated by the Assessee), thereby proving the fact that the international transactions entered into by the Assessee are at arm's length. 3:4 The learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that

Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 282/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92C(3)Section 92DSection 9A(3)

erred in directing exclusion of Kals Information Systems Ltd. as a comparable to the Appellant. 7. Erroneous selection/ rejection of Comparable companies 7.1. The Hon'ble DRP, after having upheld the application of different financial year filter and reaching at a finding that R Systems International Limited fails the different ... different financial year filter. Upper Turnover filter 7.2. The Ld. TPO/ NFAC erred in not applying an upper-turnover filter to identify comparable companies, which led to wrongful selection of Mindtree Limited and Infosys Limited as comparables. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the actions

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 211/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)

account for, inter alia, differences in (i) accounting practice; (ii) positive working capital adjustment; (iii) risk profile between the Appellant and the comparable companies. 5.2 The Appellant craves for consequential relief of interest under section 234B & 234C under the Act. 5.3 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter and/or ... sl.no.(d) i.e. Aspire Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed as not pressed. 4. The ld. A.R. submitted regarding exclusion of comparable companies as they fail the higher threshold limit of Rs. 200 crores for turnover filter on the following reasons: 4.1 The Ld. A.R. submitted that

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

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

ITA 209/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 209/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Applied Materials India Pvt. Ltd., Unit -5, 3Rd Floor, The Deputy Explorer Building, Commissioner Of International Tech Income Tax, Park, Circle – 1(1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaeca2635C Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

Logic India Ltd.,(supra) is also as captive service provider as observed by Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal therein. Hon’ble Tribunal observed as under: COMPARABLE COMPANIES SOUGHTTO BE EXCLUDED BY THE TAXPAYER LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD. (L&T) 14. The taxpayer sought to exclude L&T from the final

Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 404/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 92BSection 92C

operating margins of comparables and the Assessee; e. Not making proper adjustment for enterprise level and transactional level differences between the Assessee and the comparable companies. Page 5 IT(TP)A No. 404/Bang/2017 f. Ignoring the business, commercial and industry realities and economic circumstances applicable to the Assessee

Torrecid India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Circle-3(3) (1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Torrecid India Private Limited Income Tax Circle-3(3)(1) Flat No. 29,30,31, Gidc, Savli, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 Alidra, Vadodara, Vs. 020 Gujarat-391775 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl4860B Assessee By : Shri. Sagar Sawhney. Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Srar Date Of Hearing: 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Sagar SawhneyFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta SRAR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

tested party adopting profit level indicator of gross profit ratio of trading segment. The gross profit of the assessee was 8.53%. Assessee selected 8 comparable companies computed their weighted average gross profit where 35th percentile was 4.43%, 65th percentile is 13.26% and thus, median was 5.93%. Thus, the international transaction ... indicator is determined of gross profit ratio and the gross profit ratio of assessee was found to be at 15.35% whereas of the other comparable companies was 14.64% which is stated to be at arm's-length by the assessee, is proper or not. 17. The assessee submitted before

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

grounds of appeal, at the time of hearing of the Appeal, the learned counsel for the Assessee restricted his arguments to exclusion of 7 comparable companies viz., and exclusion of margins for R.S.Software (India) Ltd., for FY 2014-15 & 2015- 16) inclusion of one comparable company Akshay Software Technologies ... Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) for the purpose of comparison of the Assessee’s profit margin with that of the comparable companies. The OP/OC of the Assessee was arrived at 12.70% by the Assessee in its TP study. The operating income was Rs.40

Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80G

Assessee seeking 5 IT(TP)A No. 268/Bang/2021 M/s. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. exclusion of incomparable companies and inclusion of comparable companies came to be rejected. The final list of comparables post the directions of the DRP is as follows: Sl. No. Name of the Company 1. Kals ... 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. An increase in the size

M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1695/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1695/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 69/2 & 69/3, Commissioner Of Kunigal Road, Income Tax, Jakkasandra, Circle – 6(1)(1), Nelamangala, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 562 123. Pan: Aabcs7591Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Assessee By Ca : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Revenue By Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 20/05/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law. Transfer Pricing - General Grounds 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao & Tpo In: A) Making A Reference For The Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price Of The International Transactions To The Tpo

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain

action of the AO and TPO in: (i) Not making proper adjustment for enterprise level and transactional level differences between the Appellant and the comparable companies; and (ii) Not recognizing that the Appellant was insulated from risks, as against comparables, which assume these risks and therefore have to be credited

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3317/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

erred in making an adjustment to the import price of goods by comparing the unadjusted net margins with that of the comparable companies. 2.5 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the gross margin of the appellant is higher than that of the comparable companies and hence ... during the year. The CIT(A) /TPO having accepted that Management services were 2.14 received, erred in not comparing the same with external comparable companies instead of simply disallowing the same. The CIT(A) /TPO erred in arbitrarily making downward adjustment by 2.15 determining ALP of management charges

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3316/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3315/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

M/S. Tricom Infotech Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3) (1), `Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2129/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Tricom Infotech Solutions Ltd 2Nd Floor, Tricom House, Dcit 3(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Gandhi Estate, Andheri Kurla Vs. Road, Safed Pool, Andheri Road, Mumbai- 400 020 (E) Mumbai- 400 072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg8618E Assessee By : Shri. Reepal G. Tralshawala. Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing: 06.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal G. TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

would be 8.93%. TPO also made an independent search, by rejecting 3 comparable of the selected by assessee and included 2 comparable, retained 9 comparable companies whose profit level indicator was determined at 21.75%. Accordingly, he determined the adjustment of ₹ M/s Tricom Infotech Solutions ... learned transfer pricing officer/the learned assessing officer is directed to compute the profit level indicator of the assessee at 11.35%. 011. Coming to the comparable companies exclude by the learned transfer pricing officer, we find that Aurum software systems Ltd was excluded by the learned transfer pricing officer

Triumph International (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 935/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

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)

learned DRP/AO has erred in confirming the action of the TPO in adopting prior year (FY 2008-09) capacity utilization data of comparable companies in arriving at the capacity utilization adjustment for FY 2009-10 2.3 The learned DRP erred in confirming the order of the TPO/AO in treating certain ... capacity utilization. 2.4 The learned DRP/AO erred in not providing appropriate adjustment for excess employee cost incurred by the Appellant vis-a-vis comparable companies considering the initial phase of operations. 2.5 The TPO erred in not providing appropriate adjustments for excess depreciation charged by the Appellant