“comparable companies”

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.191/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Limited, Delhi. 59/2, 1St Floor, Gurudas Heritage, Block-B, 100 Feet Ring Road, Banashankari 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 070. Pan: Aafct 3474 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

facet of the argument of the assessee in connection with the determination of ALP viz., companies with high turnover cannot be taken as a comparable company for comparing profit margins of the assessee. The specific contention in this regard is that the lower authorities erred in not applying an upper ... limit of turnover upto INR 200 crores for selection of comparable companies for benchmarking. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that if some of the comparable companies that remain after the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are excluded then he would not press

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Margin Method as the using the Operating Profit to Operating Revenue as PLI and conducted a se which yielded a set of 13 comparable companies whose weighted PLI was 1. The taxpayer's PLI was 5.09%. Hence the taxpayer treated its Internal Transaction relating to Import of goods for sale

Metric Stream Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining ALP. The profit level Indicator (PLI) chosen for the purpose of comparing Assessee’s margin with that of the comparable companies was Operating profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC). Mark-up on Total Cost (OP/ OC) earned by the Assessee (as reflected in the TP order): Particulars ... used PROWESS & PROWESS CAPITALINE Comparables selected 14 11 4. After rejecting the Transfer Pricing Study (TP Study) of the taxpayer, the TPO selected 11 comparable companies, whose average profit margin was as follows: Comparables selected by TPO and their arithmetic mean as per TPO order: Mark-up on Sl. Comparables

Walvoil Fluid Power India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.339/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Walvoil Fluid Power India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.19, 2Nd Cross, 2Nd Main, Of Income Tax, Kiadb Attibele Industrial Area, Circle 7(1)(2), Attibele, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 562 107. Pan: Aaacw 5954E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal Is Against The Final Order Of The Ao Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Dated 28.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On The Following Grounds:- “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That In The Calculation Of Alp The Ld. Ao Erred In Including Entities Such As M/S Dhp India Ltd & The Sundram Bleistahl

enhancement held that no adjustment should be made to the profit margins on account of working capital differences between the tested party and the comparable companies for the following reasons: (i) The daily working capital levels of the tested party and the comparables was the only reliable basis of determining ... called for. As far as the Assessee is concerned, the facts and figures with regard to his business has to be furnished. Regarding comparable companies, one has to fall back upon only on the information available in the public domain. If that information is insufficient, it is beyond the power

Sri. Krishna Diamonds, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

profit of the Appellant. 6. The lower authorities have erred in: ii. Not granting adjustment functional and transactional differences between the Assessee and the comparable companies; - . iii. Not granting adjustment for working capital and risk differential; and IT(TP)A No.232/Bang/2022 Page 4 of 24 7. The lower authorities have

Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

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

Operating profit/ Operating cost 9.49% 51.61% 10.26% Page 6 of 24 10. The assessee had selected 16 comparable companies in the Software Development [SWD] services. The TPO observed that 10 comparables selected by the assessee failed the filters selected by him and after considering the objections to the show cause ... different parameters and further the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 (supra) excluded these comparable companies. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as follows:- “Persystent Systems Limited 6. The assessee objected for the exclusion of this company

Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 10(c) is allowed for statistical purposes

M/s.Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited. 4. The learned TPO and the learned AO have erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting the following comparable companies based on unreasonable criteria for determining the arm's length margin in relation to provision of sourcing support services without appreciating the fact that ... comparable companies identified by the appellant is functionally comparable and has satisfied all the filters adopted by the TPO; Companies forming part of Appellant's TP documentation (a) MCI Management (India) Limited (b) Concept Public Relations India Limited; and Additional Comparable Companies proposed by the Appellant (c) Adhaan Solutions Private

M/S Conduent Business Services India LLP, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground No.1 to 3 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

risk profile of the Appellant v/s-a -v/s the comparables. 8. The learned AO/TFO/DRP erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant using turnover less than 1 crore as a comparability criterion. 9. Without prejudice to above Ground No. 5, the learned AO/TPO/DRP erred ... times of the turnover of the Appellant as a comparability criterion. 10. The learned AO/TPO/DRP erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant using software development service/ITeS income less than 75% of the operating income as a comparability criterion. 11. The learned AO/TPO/DRP

Amc Cookware (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.429/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Amc Cookware (India) Private Limited, Vs. Ito, No.1180, 12Th B Main, 1St Cross, Hal 2Nd Ward – 1(1)(1), Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aacca 4970 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. P. Srinivas, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 30.03.2022 Passed By The Ito, Ward – 1(1)(1) Of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1962 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Only Dispute Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Determining The Shortfall In Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of An International Transaction At Rs.2,37,87,122/- & It(Tp)A No.429/Bang/2022 Page 2 Of 8

distribution segment on the contention that it is functionally dissimilar. 6. The learned TPO and DRP has erred in considering Hawkins Cookers Limited as comparable company to your Appellant's distribution segment business as this company is functionally dissimilar and has a different business model of selling products through ... against the ‘direct selling model' of your appellant. 7. The learned TPO and DRP has erred in considering Nirlep Appliances Private Limited as comparable company to your IT(TP)A No.429/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 8 Appellant's distribution segment business as this company is functionally dissimilar and has a different

Schneider Electric It Business India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.185/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

final set; 4.7. erroneously rejecting the fresh search furnished by the Appellant on a without prejudice basis; 4.8. disregarding the corrected margins of comparable companies submitted by the Appellant; 4.9. disregarding various economic adjustments including working capital adjustment in determining the arm's length profit margin; and 4.10. disregarding judicial ... No.185/Bang/2022 Schneider Electric IT Business India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 9 of 17 3. In respect of the exclusion / inclusion of certain comparable companies, Ld. DRP held that the comparability of a company cannot be determined with regard to the decisions of the assessee bodies rendered for some other year

Arm Embedded Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Rejecting the Company's contentions against that the use of information under section 133(6) of the Act, which tantamounts to choosing secret comparable companies whose information were not available in public domain while undertaking the TP study for the respective financial year and without prejudice. not sharing the responses ... applying an inappropriate interpretation of computing the filter and thereby accepting Persistent Systems Ltd., Aspire Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Thirdware Solution Ltd. as comparable companies to the SWD services segment of the Appellant, though they fail the RPT filter. 2.9 Holding that decisions of this Hon'ble Tribunal cannot

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

have erred, in law and in facts, by accepting/rejecting certain companies based on unreasonable comparable criteria. 22.1 Appellant's contention for rejection of comparable companies selected by learned TRO lAO / CIT(A) The Appellant submits that the companies provided below should be rejected on following grounds: Page ... Appellant's contention for acceptance of comparable company rejected by learned Cl T(A) The learned CIT(A) have erred, in law and in facts, by suo-moto rejecting the company "Informed Technologies Limited" based on unreasonable comparable criteria and irrelevant grounds. The Appellant craves leave to contest selection

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

documentation and holding that current year (i.e. Financial Year 2011-12) data for companies should be used for comparability and computing the margin of comparable companies. 3. That the Assessing Officer/ Transfer Pricing Officer in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in law and on facts ... Assessing Officer/ Transfer Pricing Officer in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in law and on facts in including comparable companies, (that is, Genesys International Corporation Limited), in the comparability analysis which has diversified business operations and substantial investment made in intangibles and do not satisfy