“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

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

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

ITA 477/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

R.S.Software on the ground of application of turnover filter for FY 2013-14 and 2014-15. Those reasons given will equally apply to this comparable company also and accordingly, we direct that the margins of this company for FY 2013-14 should not be taken for working out the average ... been countered by the Assessee and by merely relying on findings in earlier AY that this company was held to be not a comparable company, the Assessee cannot seek exclusion of this company from the list of comparable companies. The only direction that the Assessee can get is that

Polycom Technology ( R & D ) Center P. Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2067/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia & Shri MihirFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

Intangible Property (IP) as a result of research and development services provided by the appellant to its AE; 8. erred in erroneously rejecting the comparable companies selected by the appellant in its transfer pricing documentation, maintained under Rule 10D(4) of the Income tax Rules, 1962 ("Rules") for the international ... capital adjustment: 12. erred in not making suitable adjustments to account for differences in working capital deployed by the appellant vis-à-vis the comparable companies. Risk adjustment: ITA Nos. 2067/M/2017 & 7398/M/18 Polycom Technology (R&D) Center P. Ltd.; A.Y. 12-13 13. erred in not making suitable adjustments

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3033/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 10ASection 250Section 2D

same in order to prove its applicability to the case by specious comparison of the international transaction of availing of service with the alleged comparable companies carrying out the business of provision of services and with premeditated objective of making an adjust to the income of the appellant. 1.3.3 Incorrect ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not demonstrated how high turnover comparable companies effect profitability of the assessee company and ignoring the decision of the Hon‟ble Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of Natel Network Pvt. Ltd, and Maersk Global

Vena Energy Patan Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 255/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

most appropriate method (MAM) for determination of the arm’s length price [ALP]. Accordingly, the assessee applied certain filters to arrive at the comparable companies. The assessee selected a range of 10% (35th percentile) to 17.5% (65th percentile) as arm’s length range with the median of 16.53% and since

Vena Energy Kn Wind Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 254/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

Vena Energy Mh Wind Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 253/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

Vena Energy Fatanpur Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 252/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144(3)Section 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 ... commission paid by the assessee was 7% of the value of products sourced. The assessee benchmarked the same under CUP method by selecting certain comparable companies, which had paid sourcing commission in the range of 5% to 12%. Accordingly, the assessee claimed the payment to be at arms length

M/S. Sulzer Tech India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt./ Dy./ Asstt. CIT/ Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 633/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Saeana a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

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

assessee in benchmarking its international transaction, on the sole ground that the said comparable had earned a lower profit as compared to other comparable companies. 1.2. Without prejudice, the Ld. TPO/ AO erred in not giving effect to the directions of the DRP and in not revising the computation ... paid for the aforesaid services to its associated enterprises with a markup of 5%, which is within the range of markup earned by the comparable companies, the international transaction M/s. Sulzer Tech India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.633/Mum./2021 pertaining to ‘Payment of Corporate IT Support Services’ was considered

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Climate Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 729/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

distribution of Cold Storage Equipment (“Trading segment”) to its AEs. After applying certain filters, the search of the databases yielded a set of 3 comparable companies with arithmetic mean profit margin of 11.56 percent (Refer page 506 of Paper book). Since the gross profit margin of the assessee ... higher than average gross profit margin of the comparable companies at 11.56%, the international transactions in the Trading segment were concluded to be at arm’s length. 8. The TPO during the course of TP proceedings rejected the RPM and chose TNMM as MAM. The TPO computed the operating margin

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7076/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Circle 11(3)(1) Torrecid India Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Plot No.29, 30, 31, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Alindra, Savli Gidc, Vadodara, Vadodara–391775 Mk Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct 4321 M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neelu Jaggi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

from clichés SA Mexico AE, assessee adopted CUP method taking the foreign AE as a tested party compared with the prices charged by the comparable companies and stated that the prices charged to the assessee is less than the price charged by them to the comparable companies and therefore same ... foreign AES tested party adopted profit level indicator of operating profit/total cost and found that tested party results are less than the result of comparable companies and concluded that the international transactions are at arm’s-length. 07. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer examined and found that assessee

Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 321/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

identification of comparables (with unreasonable comparability criteria) and determining of the ALP in connection with the impugned specified domestic transaction. Rejection of Non-comparable companies 15. Without prejudice, the learned TPO/ AO has erred. in law and in fact. by selecting certain companies as comparable companies ignoring the fact that ... that a working capital adjustment would take into account the differences in the levels of account receivables and accounts payable vis-à-vis the comparable companies. But the assessee has not filed any factual information as to the extended credit period and its impact on the profitability or pricing

M/S. Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 606/BANG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., No. 138, Export It(Tp)A No. Promotion Industrial 2008-09 606/Bang/2021 Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P The Joint M/S. Sap Labs India Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, (Successor To M/S. Special Range – 6, Success Factors Bangalore. Business Solutions It(Tp)A No. India Pvt. Ltd.), 2015-16 2510/Bang/2019 No. 138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA

Section 3(1)(b)

final se of comparables the following companies falling outside that range of turnover and companies that had abnormally high Profits: Sl. Turnover OP/TC Comparable company No. (Rs. Crore) (%) 1 Avani Cimcon Technologies Ltd. 2.93 25.62 2 Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. 10.37 18.72 3 Celestial Biolabs Ltd. 20.21 87.94 4 e-Zest ... view of the above reasons, the learned Authorised Representative pleaded that, this company i.e. Infosys Technologies Ltd., be excluded form the list of comparable companies. 11.3 Per contra, opposing the contentions of the assessee, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that comparability cannot be decided merely on the basis of scale

On Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

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

adjustment made, are as under:- Comparables selected by TPO and arm’s length range: Weighted average Sl. No. Name of comparable company unadjusted margin (%) KALS Information Systems Pvt. Ltd. 8.60 1. Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd. 14.50 2. Sybrant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 14.74 3. Harbinger Systems ... Technologies Limited (vii) Thirdware Solutions Limited (viii) Infosys Limited (ix) Aspire Systems (India) Private Limited (x) Cybage Software Private Limited. (b) Rejecting the following comparable companies selected by the Appellant in its TP documentation even though the companies are functionally comparable to the Appellant. (i) Octo International Limited

M/S. Success Factors Business Solutions India Private Limited (Now Merged With Sap Labs India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 2510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA

Section 3(1)(b)

M/S Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt.Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 73/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

transactions between the assessee and its AEs in the manufacturing segment. The assessee selected TNM Method as the most appropriate method and taking certain comparable companies, the assessee concluded the international transactions as at arm’s length. In arriving at the profit margin, the assessee made certain adjustments ... demonstrate that there exists foreign currency would be borne only such losses in the case of by the Assessee. The AE has nothing comparable companies to do whatsoever with this. In fact, selected by the Assessee. during the year under consideration the per unit price of the materials imported

Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6875/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 195Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

certain adjustment for unutilised capacity and on such adjustments it has submitted that its net cost plus margin was 14.2%. The assessee selected 22 comparable companies and adopted the weighted average of their operating profit on cost for 3 years and the average mean was submitted as 12.51%. Accordingly

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2595/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

proceedings before the TPO or the assessment or CIT(A), was the methodology used by the assessee and the appropriateness of the comparable companies selected for benchmarking, were questioned. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating ... assessee further submitted that during the year under consideration it experienced an abnormally high employee turnover. The assessee submitted that in case of comparable companies, the average percentage of personnel expenses to total revenue works out to approximately 27%, whereas the same works out at 56% for the assessee

ACIT Cir 1, Thane vs. Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane

ITA 2788/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

search profit/sales as profit level indicator. The assessee in its search profit/sales as profit level indicator. The assessee in its search process for comparable companies included companies engaged in for comparable companies included companies engaged in for comparable companies included companies engaged in manufacturing of chemicals manufacturing of chemicals

Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Thane

ITA 2628/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)