“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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Thomson Holding India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as revenue stands dismissed

ITA 869/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Thomson Holding India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Robinson Air The Deputy Services Central Commissioner Of Income Warehousing Tax, Corporation, Circle – 16(1), Opp. Sbi Colony, New Delhi. Rana Pratap Bagh, Vs. G.T. Karnal Road, New Delhi – 110 033. Pan: Aacct0862G Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Technicolor India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Thomson The Deputy Holdings India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 306-308, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Bestech Chambers Circle – 16(1), Block B, Sushant Lok-I, New Delhi. Vs. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 009. Pan: Aacct0862G Appellant Respondent : Shri Mukesh Butani, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Revenue By Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Butani

Section 920(2)

length. 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ TPO have erred in including certain comparable companies by conducting a fresh search (without sharing the search methodology) using subjective filters and the DRP further erred in upholding the inclusion of such companies ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP/ TPO have erred in arbitrarily rejecting comparable companies chosen by the Appellant on a subjective basis. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP/ TPO have erred

M/S. Thomson Holdings India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1911/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Butani

Section 920(2)

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Inventurus Knowledge Soltions P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing

ITA 2403/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabci 5573 J Co No. 249/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 2403/Mum/2018 For A.Y. 2011–12) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Sc Tiwari/ Ms Umamagswari M, Ars Revenue By : Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri SC Tiwari/For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. AR

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

appropriate method selecting the wholly owned subsidiary in US as tested party, conducted search in Standard & Poor's Compustat and Merchant Database, selected nine comparable companies considering the 3 years database financial results holding that (profit level indicator)PLI of operating profit to operating cost of the comparable companies ... transaction availing marketing support services from its Associated Enterprises is at Arm’s Length Price. During the course assessee updated the PLI as a comparable company taking single year data for F.Y. 2010-11 and determined arithmetic mean at 10.13%. 06. With respect to the provision of revenue cycle management

Dover India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.460/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Dover India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Bagmane Laurel, 1St Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Bengaluru. C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aaaci 3920 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 29.03.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Providing Software Development Services (Swd Services), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

referred to by the AO, accepted TNMM as the MAM and also used the same PLI for comparison i.e., OP/TC. He also selected comparable companies from database. The TPO on his own identified 20 companies as comparable with the Assessee company and worked out the average arithmetic mean of their ... time of hearing the learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that if 7 companies chosen by the TPO are excluded from the list of comparable companies based on ground No.5 raised by the Assessee in the grounds of appeal, then he does not wish to press for adjudication any other

Essilor India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 448/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 448/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Essilor India Pvt. Ltd., 10Th Floor, Prestige The Deputy Trade Tower, Commissioner Of 46, Palace Road, Income Tax, High Grounds Circle – 2(1)(1), Sampangi Rama Bangalore. Vs. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan: Aaace4623J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 31/03/2022 Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 92Section 92C

associated enterprise, i.e., SMC. Moreover as MSIL was concerned, its operating profit margin was 11.19 per cent. which was higher than that of the comparable companies whose profit margin was 4.04 per cent. Therefore, applying the transactional net margin method it must be stated that there was no question ... Consequently, there could not be any exercise of determining the ALP of the AMP expenses by comparing the expenses incurred by the Assessee with comparable companies. In view of the above conclusions, the other aspects whether the comparable companies chosen by the TPO are in fact comparable in terms

Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 350/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri

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

which the assessee has made a suo motu TP adjustment of Rs.8,31,45,517/- (page 174 of paper book). The Assessee selected 10 comparable companies whose 35th and 6. 65th percentile range of the weighted average operating profit/total cost is in the range of 10.76% to 20.84% where ... service provider which assumes minimal risk associated with the business of providing software development services. The TPO thereafter applied certain filters and selected 15 comparable companies in software development segment which included 12 new companies as comparables, while 3 company selected by the Assessee were retained. 8. The TPO, determined

Mfx Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 251/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144B

filter of companies owning significant intellectual property, brand or developing proprietary products, as applied by the Appellant. (b) by not excluding the following comparable companies even though they fail the RPT filter of 15% of operating sales: - Persistent Systems Ltd - Aspire Systems (India) Pvt Ltd - Inteq Software Private Limited - Thirdware ... Technologies Private Limited 16. The lower income tax authorities erred in inappropriately computing the net margins (operating profit over operating cost) of the following comparable companies: (a) CG-VAK Software and Export Limited (b) Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd (c) Aspire Systems (India) Pvt Ltd (d) Cybage Software

Parexel International Clinical Research Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 189/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Parexel International Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd., Cowrks, Rmz The Assistant Ecoworld, Ground Commissioner Of Floor, Bay Area- Income Tax, Adjacent To Building Circle 5(1)(2), 6A, Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aadcp9318C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandini Shah, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 26/03/2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Chandini Shah, CA

Section 92C

Margin Method (`TNMM.) and adopting the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of Operating Profit / Total Cost (OP/TC). 2.3. The assessee conducted a detailed search for comparable companies and arrived at a set of 5 companies whose arithmetic mean margin was computed as 9.81%. Since the assessee had earned a higher margin ... than the comparable companies, the international transactions were determined to be at Arm's length. 2.4. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has considered the pass-through cost as a part of the assessee's cost-base and thereby recomputed the margin (operating profit/operating costs

M/.S Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed in respect of the issues argued and considered hereinabove

ITA 2595/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner Of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aaccn1140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29/10/2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate

Section 143(2)

percent on operating cost. The assessee selected Transaction Net Margin Method ("TNMM") as the Most Appropriate Method ("MAM") and selected a set of 11 comparable companies with median of 11.18 percent with 35th to 65th percentile range of 6.13 percent to 14.72 percent. Since the profit margin earned ... percent on operating cost. The assessee selected Transaction Net Margin Method ("TNMM") as the Most Appropriate Method ("MAM") and selected a set of 9 comparable companies with median of 7.37 percent with 35th to 65th percentile range of 6.81 percent to 8.15 percent. Since the profit margin earned

M/S. Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2577/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

Software Private Limited • Tata Elxsi Limited • Persistent System Limited • Mindtree Limited • Larsen and Turbo Infotech Limited • Infosys Limited Ground No. 13: Rejection of additional comparable companies requested for inclusion by the Appellant during the course of TP assessment proceedings 13. The learned DRP / AO / TPO has erred ... facts in rejecting the following comparable companies requested for inclusion by the Appellant during the course of TP proceedings: • Minvesta Infortech Limited • Akshay Software Technologies Limited • Sasken Communication Technologies Limited • Evoke Technologies Limited • Helios & Matheson IT Bangalore Limited • TVS Infotech Limited • New Age Bizsoft solutions Pvt Limited • I2T2 India Limited

Ingredion India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2156/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm The Income Tax Officer Ingredion India Pvt. Ltd 15(20)(1) 1605 Rupa Solitaire, Millennium Business Park, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Thane, Belapur Rd, Mahape, M.K.Road, Navi Mumbai- 400 710 Mumbai- 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecc1920C Assessee By : Shri. Ketan Ved. Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi D Hande, Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 20.10.2022. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D Hande, SR AR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92d

margin method as the most appropriate method. The claim of the assessee is that net operating margin of the assessee is higher than the comparable companies and therefore it is at arm’s length. The learned TPO has determined ALP of royalty at ₹ Nil. The assessee claims that

Lloyds Offshore Global Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are partly allowed

ITA 194/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Platinum Advertising Private Limited. IT(TP)A Nos.27/BANG/2020 & 194/BANG/2021 Page 4 of 31 b) The learned AO/ DRP/ TPO erred, 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) Concept Public Relations India Limited ... facts, by not making suitable adjustment to account for differences in working capital of the Appellant vis-à-vis that of the comparable companies; Additional grounds 10. The learned AO/DRP/TPO and the learned DRP have erred, in law and in facts, by accepting companies based on unreasonable comparability criteria

M/S. Lloyds Offshore Global Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are partly allowed

ITA 27/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Frost & Sullivan (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7899/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Frost & Sullivan (I) P. Ltd. Tax, Tower Vi, Iv Floor, Solitaire Central Circle 8(1), Corporate Park, Chakala, Vs. Andheri (E) Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacf4252A Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2022

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

been placed on information gathered by the TPO under section 133(6) of the Act for the purposes of accepting / rejecting companies as comparable companies, which information is not in the public domain and which has not been fully made available to the appellant. (g) multiple years' financial data ... been taken into account for computing the average operating profit margins of the allegedly comparable companies selected by the TPO, especially since use of multiple year financial data (i.e. financial data of relevant previous year and two years prior thereto) was justifiable as per the proviso to Rule

Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-5, Bangalore

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

ITA 342/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.342/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Ocwen Financial Solutions The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax V. Pritech Park, Survey No.51 To Special Range – 5 64/4, Block No.12, Unit 2, 5B & Bangalore. 6A Floors, Bellandur Village, Sarjapur Marathahalli Ring Road Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaaco3764E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, Advocates Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2022 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 30.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Providing It Enabled Services To Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. Usvi. The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Ocwen Asia Holdings Limited, Mauritius. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 29.11.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.93,31,44,800. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

study of the assessee, 7 comparables were selected with 35th and 65th percentile range of the weighted average operating profit / total cost of the comparable companies of 4.40% to 11.81% and median of 10.95%. Since the profit margin of the assessee in the TP study was at 15.82% on operating ... sales were excluded. 7. Companies with employee cost less than 25 percent of turnover were excluded. 4. The TPO selected 7 new comparable companies in the ITES segment. The TPO did not include any of the comparables, which were selected in the TP study of the assessee. The TPO determined

M/S. Tivo Tech Private Limited (Formerly Known As Veveo (India) Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 237/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 37

Most Appropriate Method (MAM). The Operating Profit divided by the Operating Cost (OP/OC) is the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). The assessee selected 8 comparable companies and the range of weighted average of OP/OC of the comparable companies were as follows:- Sl. No. Name of the company Weighted average ... Operating Profit (Op. Income – Op. Cost) Rs. 8,23,51,352/- Operating/Net mark-up (OP/OC) 16.57% 10. The weighted average of the comparable companies is in the range of 6.35 percentile to 19.89 percentile and therefore the assessee concluded that the international transactions are within arm’s length

Csav Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1941/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D. Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92D

Pricing Officer-I (3), New Delhi (Ld. TPO)and the Hon'ble DRP erred in violating the provisions of Rule 10B(2) by selecting comparable companies as below, without considering the differences in the functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed by such companies vis-à-vis the Assessee, thereby ... notional interest (as computed by TPO) from the operating revenue, the Appellant's margin is still higher than the average margin earned by the comparable companies and therefore no separate adjustment on account of interest on overdue receivable is warranted: 7.3 erred in not allowing working capital adjustment claimed

Softlayer Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 265/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Rules to account for, inter alia, differences in (i) depreciation (ii) positive working capital; (iii) risk profile between the Appellant and the comparable companies; (iv) marketing expenses; and (v) research & development expenses, if favorable to the Appellant. [Ground of appeal no. 4(v) – Grounds of appeal filed on 22 June ... observing that the companies are not passing the appropriate filters. The PPO had also issued 133(6) to some of the comparable companies for calling information. He also holds that Principal of res judicatta is not applicable to the assessment proceedings as each assessment year is unique and, therefore different

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 703/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

said adjustment, the TPO in para 3.1 has erred in assuming that the Tribunal has only set aside the issue of comparability of the comparable companies selected by the TPO but not objected to the filters adopted by the TPO for selection of comparables. Perusal of the grounds of appeal ... written submissions dated 07.01.2021 filed before DRP on 08.01.2021 has contested for rejection of following comparables interalia its objections on various filters. List of comparable companies contested by the Assessee on various grounds for rejection Sl. Name of the Company Grounds of Appeal No. • Fails RPT filter 1 Aztech Software

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited (Earlier Known As Ge Medical Systems India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 344/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C