“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

M/S. Onmobile Global Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2560/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

call centre, etc.,- selected; IT(TP)A Nos.139 & 2560/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 40 Companies having average intangible asset >10% of total assets- rejected; Non comparable companies- rejected. 3. OnMobile Technical 17% COMPUST Companies for 12.74% (of Brasil support (page AT which financial 13 Sistemas services. 2061 data was not companies

M/S Onmobile Global Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 173/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Nuance Transcription The Assistant Commissioner Services India Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) V. Bangalore. First Floor, Block B, Salarpuria Aura, Khata No.434/170 Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout Bangalore – 560 103. Pan : Aaacf3465F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Vishal Kalra, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 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 22.11.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites) To Focus Enterprises Limited, Usa, Which Is An Associate Enterprise (Ae) Of The Assessee. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Total Income Of Rs.23,99,94,900. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 2 It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017. M/S.Nuance Transcription Services India Private Limited. 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Dated 14.08.2013 Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Had Entered Into International Transactions With Its Ae. Accordingly, The Case Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Ae’S. The Tpo Vide Order Dated 28.01.2016, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Following Tp Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 92C

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP / TPO have erred, in arbitrarily rejecting certain functionally comparable companies identified by the Appellant on a subjective basis, inter alia, using unreasonable comparability criteria. 9.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... have erred in arbitrarily selecting comparable companies based on incorrect appreciation of functional, asset and risk profile, and arbitrary filters. 9.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP / TPO have erred in selecting company having abnormal profits. 9.4 That on the facts

Macquare Capital Securities India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue ITA no-

ITA 5709/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms Jasmin AmasadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Sauel Pitta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in rejecting the list of comparable companies selected by the TPO and granting relief to the assessee. 3 ITA.No.5636 & 5709/Mum/2014 Macquarie Capital India P. Ltd. 2. Whether on the facts ... circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in rejecting the list of comparable companies by the TPO without adjudicating on the finding of the TPO that main business of the assessee company is not merely investment banking but knowledge process Outsourcing Services (KPO Services

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Macquarie Capital India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue ITA no-

ITA 5636/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms Jasmin AmasadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Sauel Pitta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

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

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

ITA 2385/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

domain at the time of preparing the TP documentation. 4.5. Using information under section 133(6) of the Act, which tantamount to choosing secret comparable companies whose information was not available in public domain while preparing the TP documentation for the relevant financial year. 4.6. Disregarding certain filters applied ... Appellant in selection of the comparable companies at the time of TP documentation. 4.7. Applying/ modifying the following filters while undertaking comparability analysis: a) Rejection of companies having different financial year ending or data of the company not falling within 12 month period; and b) Rejection of companies by applying

Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, RG- 7 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7159/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (CIT-DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J” :MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Hempel Singapoe Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamini, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9

alleging that the PE has not been compensated for market risk, product liability risk and credit risk attributable to it; 5.4 rejecting the comparable companies as functionally different; 5.5 not undertaking the facts finding exercise and failed to substantiate their assumption by not bringing anything on records; Hempel Singpore

ACIT Circle 2(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Eclerx Services Limited (Sucessor of M/S. Agilyst Consulting Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1614/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, M/S. Eclerx Services Ltd. Circle 2(1)(1), (Successor Of M/S. Agilyst Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Consulting Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Building, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 009 Pan: Aaace79321 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chakravarty, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 251Section 254

benchmark the international transactions qua ITES and ALP adjustment made are extracted as under: “11, The final set of comparable companies considered is summarized hereunder: SI No Name of the FY 2012-13 FY 2013- FY 2014- Weighted Company 14 15 average 1 Excel Infoways ... adopted 11.11% margin. This is primarily because of inclusion of data for FY 2012-13 which was not considered by TPO as the comparable company did not pass export filter for FY 2012-13. In the submission, appellant has stated that Jindal Intellicom Ltd. passes export filter

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Komli Wedia India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.3889/Mum/2017 for A

ITA 3890/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Samruddhi D Hande, DR

services; that the assessee was helping in creating intangibles like brand value of AE by incurring advertisement and publicity expenses; that services rendered by comparable companies chosen by the assessee are not similar to that of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Komli Wedia India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.3889/Mum/2017 for A

ITA 3889/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Samruddhi D Hande, DR

Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai vs. Geometric Softwar Solutions Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground no

ITA 6219/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Geometric Software The Acit Solutions Company Ltd. Ward 10(2), [ Now Merged With Hcl Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Technologies Limited ] Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Mumbai-400 020 Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcg 0066 A Co No. 157/Mum/2011 (Arising In Ita No.6219/Mum/2010 For A.Y. 2005–06) M/S Geometric Software Solutions Company Ltd. The Acit (Now Gemetric Ltd.) [ Now Ward 10(2), Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Merged With Hcl Vs. Technologies Limited] Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri Porus F. Kaka & Shri Manish Kanth, Ars‟ Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Porus F. Kaka &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 10ASection 14A

holding that the operating margin earned by the assessee company for its international transaction is higher than the arithmetic mean of margins of comparable companies , the assessee company is considered to have earned an arm‟s-length operating margin in respect of the transactions with its associated enterprises ... held that operating margin earned by the assessee for its international transaction is higher than the arithmetic mean of the margin of comparable companies even on the basis of the fresh search undertaken by the TPO. He further held that the appellant is enjoying 10 A holiday benefits makes Geometric

Geometric Software Solutins Co. Ltd ( Now Gemetric Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no

ITA 5975/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Porus F. Kaka &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 10ASection 14A

M/S. Meritor C vs. India Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 249/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Appeal No.18 of 2015 dated 16.9.2015 wherein it was held that high turnover is a ground to exclude a company from the list of comparable companies in determining ALP, held that there were contrary views on the issue and hence the view favourable to the Assessee laid down ... therefore following the said view, the action of the CIT(A) excluding companies with turnover of above Rs.200 crores from the list of comparable companies is held to correct and such action does not call for any interference.” 13. The Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT

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

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

ITA 2623/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2623/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Blue Coat Network (India) Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 1001 & 1002, The Deputy 10Th Floor, Rmz Campus Commissioner Of 8-B, Income Tax, Plot No. C-L, Sarjapur Circle – 1(1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Bangalore. Vs. Road, Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aahcs7844Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 22/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle -1 (1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 143(2)

clearing the quantitative criteria A subjective filter. To be seen 9 were analysed the qualitatively to on a case to case basis. select functionally comparable companies. This is an inappropriate filter. Segments having data for at least The TPO has selected more 10 one out of the three financial years ... filter. eliminated. Software Development segments of companies clearing the quantitative 13 This is an appropriate filter. criteria were analysed the qualitatively to select functionally comparable companies. ITES (Data Center Services) Companies for which data was not available in Prowess and 1 This is an appropriate filter. having positive sale over

Lg Soft India Private 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

ITA 266/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 143(3)

Learned AO/Learned TPO/Hon’ble DRP has erred in not allowing appropriate adjustment towards working capital between the appellant vis-à-vis the comparable companies.” 3. Facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Electronics and provides software development services in the areas such ... fact that this company was also trading in software and owned insignificant intangible assets. The company was excluded from the list of comparable companies with reference to SWD services provider such as the assessee. The ld. Counsel pointed out that though this decision was rendered with reference

Airlinq Technology Private Limited (Formerly Known As Globetouch Technologies Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 231/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.231/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Airlinq Technology Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Globe Touch Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Technologies Private Limited) 306, 100 Feet Road, Binna Mangala Stage – 1, Indiranagar Bangalore – 560 038. Pan : Aafcg7626L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, Cas Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 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 29.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Was Incorporated On 15.10.2014 As A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Globetouch Inc, Usa. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Development Services (Swd) To Globetouch Inc. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring An Income Of Rs.4,23,01,510 Under The Normal Provisions Of The Income-Tax Act. The Assessment Was Selected

For Appellant: S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, CAsFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

Ground 2.7 16. The assessee in the above ground has sought the 11 IT(TP)A No.231/Bang/2021. M/s.Airlinq Technology Private Limited. inclusion of two comparable companies. The learned AR has submitted that Akshay Software Technologies Limited and Evoke Technologies Limited are comparable companies as they are operating in the business ... before us. It is ordered accordingly. 19. Similarly, the learned AR has urged the inclusion of Evoke Technologies Private Limited in the list of comparable companies. The TPO has rejected it citing unreliable financial statements. The DRP has not adjudicated its functional compatibility by simply stating that

M/S Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR

Section 92D

ground no. 2.1 & original ground no. 2.1) 2.2 Disregarding the application of multiple-year data while computing the profit level indicators ("PLI") of the comparable companies; (corresponding to revised ground no. 2.2 & original ground no. 2.2) 2.3 Using data, which was not contemporaneous and which was not available ... /TPO , erred in not providing the risk adjustment based on the actual differences in the risk profile between the Appellant and the comparable companies for the purpose of determining the arm's length price of the international transactions entered into by the Appellant instead limiting the risk adjustment

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR

Section 92D

M/S Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 181/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., No. 10 Brindavan, The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Yashoda Nagar Main Income Tax, Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Jakkur Plantation, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan: Aaacq0656P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahaveer C Jain, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 25/01/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer C Jain, CA

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

more than Rs. 200 Crores and the Assessee's turnover is only Rs. 17,77,11,711/-. The TPO excluded from the list of comparable companies chosen by the Assessee in its TP study companies whose turnover was less than Rs. 1 Crore. The contention of the Assessee before ... effect on profitability wherever there is high or low turnover and therefore companies with high turnover should also be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The DRP primarily relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India