“comparable companies”

Ntt Data Fa Insurance Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.261/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Associated Enterprise. 4. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in rejecting the Appellant's transfer pricing study and accordingly conducting fresh search for comparable companies. 5. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in rejecting the use of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP') method for determining the arm's length ... erred in not allowing an adjustment on account of difference in the level of risks assumed by the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparable companies. 8. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. TPO erred in law in applying arbitrary filters to arrive at a fresh set of companies as comparables

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, 2016-17 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

public databases. 1.5. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in applying different financial year ending filter while selecting the comparable companies thereby not considering the fact that the relevant data for the concerned financial year could be deduced from the corresponding financials. 1.6 The Learned AO/learned TPO/Hon ... learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in applying export earning filter of 75% of the total sales, leading to a narrower set of comparable companies. 1.8. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in considering bad and doubtful debts as non-operating in nature. IT(TP)A No.213/Bang/2021

Ge Be Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.304/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Ge Be Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 3(1)(1), 60, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Bengaluru. Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacg 6714 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

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 accepted 1 company chosen by the assessee as comparable company viz., Tata Elxsi Ltd. The TPO on his own identified ... Page 6 of 18 6. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that out of the 10 companies chosen as comparable companies by the TPO, 3 companies viz., Exilant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mindtree Ltd., and Tata Elxsi Ltd., have turnover of more than 200 Crores during

Hp Pps Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 278/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Hp Pps Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 24, Salarpuria Commissioner Of Arena, Income Tax, Hosur Main Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Adugodi, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aadch5825N Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Binod Kumar Singh, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 29/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Appellant Submits That: I. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao'), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Learned Tpo') & The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'Ble Drp')

erred on facts and law in not considering the financial data of the preceding two years in case of the comparable companies wherein the data for the current year is unavailable, while determining the ALP. 6. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in arbitrarily rejecting companies merely ... less than 25%. 10. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not applying the upper limit on turnover while selecting the comparable companies. 11. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in calculating RPT ratio by dividing revenue transactions to total revenue or expenditure transaction

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

unable to appreciate the contentions of Ld. A.R. Accordingly, we do not find any other reason to exclude this company from the list of comparable companies. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the AO in including this company as comparable company.” Page 21 of 35 ITA Nos. 2611 & 2732/Bang/2018 ... differences on the price, cost or profits. If the assessee is able demonstrate that difference in its working capital vis-a-vis that of comparable companies had affected its profit margin, adjustment is warranted provided that such adjustment could be computed in a reasonably accurate manner. The appellant

M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

unable to appreciate the contentions of Ld. A.R. Accordingly, we do not find any other reason to exclude this company from the list of comparable companies. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the AO in including this company as comparable company.” Page 21 of 35 ITA Nos. 2611 & 2732/Bang/2018 ... differences on the price, cost or profits. If the assessee is able demonstrate that difference in its working capital vis-a-vis that of comparable companies had affected its profit margin, adjustment is warranted provided that such adjustment could be computed in a reasonably accurate manner. The appellant

M/S. Dell International Services India Private Limited ( Formerly Known As Dell Computer 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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.392/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Dell International Services The Deputy Commissioner Vs. India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Dell Circle – 2(1)(1), Computer India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. 12/1A, 12/2A, 13/1A, Diyashree Greens, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaach 1925 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 26.04.2021, Passed By The Dcit, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bengaluru, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called The ‘Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Assessee Is The Subsidiary Of Dell International Usa & Is Engaged In The Provision Of Call Centre Support Services, Back-Office Support Services & Offshore Development Support Services [Software Development (“Swd”)] To Its Associated Enterprises (“Aes”). The Assessee Provided The Aforesaid Services To It(Tp)A No.392/Bang/2021 Page 2 Of 12

determining the ALP. The Profit Level Indicator (PLI) chosen for the purpose of comparison of the assessee’s margin with that of the comparable companies was operative profit / operating cost (OP/OC). The assessee chose 5 comparable companies in its TP study and the TPO chose 7 comparable companies. The comparable ... companies chosen by the assessee were rejected by the TPO and the TPO selected 5 comparable companies and computed the ALP of the international transaction as follows: Comparables selected by TPO and their arithmetic mean: Sl. OP/OC No. Name of the Company (WC–unadj) (in %) 1 ABB Global Inds. & Services

Global E-Business Operations 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

concerned, the learned AR had submitted that the TPO for the assessment year 2015- 2016 had considered Ace BPO Services Private Limited as a comparable company. It was contended that the same needs to be taken as a comparable since it is functionally comparable with that of the assessee ... earlier, the limited submission of the assessee before the Tribunal as per ground 1.12 is seeking exclusion of three companies from the list of comparable companies, namely, (i) Infosys BPO Limited, (ii) SPI Technologies India Private Limited, and (iii) Eclerx Services Limited. We find in the case of assessee

Puma Sports India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 306/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Operating profit 514379084 Operating Profit/Operating Revenue 7.45% 4 IT(TP)A No. 306/Bang/2022 M/s. Puma Sports India Pvt. Ltd. 8. The assessee chose five comparable companies in the transfer pricing study. The TPO rejected the comparable companies chosen by the assessee and proceeded to select fresh set of comparable companies ... applying different filters. The final set of comparable companies, selected by the TPO the mean margin of which worked to be 12.63%. is given in the table below : - Sr.No Company Name Weighted PLI for three Years (OP/OR) (%) 1 Metro Shoes Ltd. 13.78 2 V F Brands India

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

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.242/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Continuserve Softech India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Prathik Tech Park, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Bengaluru. Sy. No.93/1, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Hosur Road, Electronic City Phase 1, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaacc 8342 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

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 9.62% by the Assessee in its TP study. The operating income was Rs.27 ... also used the same PLI for comparison i.e., OP/OC, which was arrived at 6.76% by the TPO. He also selected comparable companies from database. The TPO accepted some companies chosen by the Assessee as comparable companies. The TPO on his own identified some other companies as comparable with the Assessee

M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 2593/Bang/2019 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Acit, 2015-16 Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, Circle – 2, 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Large Taxpayer Unit, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aabct 7374 C 372/Bang/2021 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 200/Bang/2022 -Do- Dcit, Ltu, 2017-18 Circle – 2, Bengaluru. 716/Bang/2022 -Do- Acit, 2018-19 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

sales of the comparables was computed. • Based on the above analysis, the range of the net margins (prior to working capital adjustment) of the comparable companies was computed. The assessee's net margin in the licensed manufacturing segment being within the range of comparables' margins, the international transactions entered into ... operating profit earned on cost of the comparables was computed. • Based on the above analysis, the range of the net margins of the comparable companies, assessee's net margin in the services segment being within the range of comparables' margins, the international transactions entered into by the assessee

Iron Mountain Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.307/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Iron Mountain Services Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Level 10, Citrine Building Bagmane World Circle – 3(1)(1), Technology Centre, 4, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Mahadevpura, Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aahcm 2578 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), 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 Provision Of Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee & Its Wholly

under section 92CA of the Act, 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 accepted some companies chosen by the assessee as comparable companies. The TPO on his own identified some other companies ... comparable resulting in a final set of 13 companies as comparable companies with the assessee company and worked out the average arithmetic mean of their profit margins as follows: Comparables selected by the TPO and arm’s length range: Weighted average Sl. No. Name of comparable company unadjusted margin

Etisalat Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

India Pvt.Ltd. Tax Appeal No.18 of 2015 judgment dated 16.9.2015 has taken the view that turnover is a relevant criterion for choosing companies as comparable companies in determination of ALP in transfer pricing cases. There is no decision of the jurisdictional High Court on this issue. In the circumstances, following ... High Court on the issue. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we uphold the order of the DRP excluding 5 companies from the list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO on the basis that the 5 companies turnover was much higher compared to that the Assessee. 17.8. In view

M/S. Hewlett-Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 3, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 2575/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Rs.256, 82,16,330. Aggrieved assessee raised its objections before the DRP. The DRP partially accepted the plea of the assessing on selection of comparable companies for determination of operating profit margin and directed the assessing officer to verify the nature of expenditure claimed with respect to software packages. Subsequently ... Shortfall being adjustment ALP-OR 88,57,08,275 10. The learned A.R., with regard to the exclusion of the 4 comparable companies, submitted that all the four exclusions sought by the assessee is covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the tribunal in the case of Yahoo