“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

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Private Limited, Ramanagaram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 92D

comparing two totally different ratios/ profit level indicators for computation of TP adjustment wherein the ratio of royalty income by sales of comparable companies is compared with the ratio of operating profit earned by the Appellant before royalty to its operating revenue to determine additional profit earned by the Appellant ... considering royalty income of comparable companies instead of royalty expenses to compute the royalty / sales ratio; c) applying arbitrary methodology of profit allocation between the AE and the Appellant in a 2:3 ratio. 9. Without prejudice , the Learned TPO/ Hon'hle DRP while undertaking the comparability analysis for applying

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

Price (ALP). The Profit Level Indicator (PLI) chosen for the purpose of comparison of the assessee’s profit margin with that of all the comparable companies was Operating Profit to Operating Revenue (OP/OR) for License manufacturing segment and Operating Profit to Operating Cost (OP/OC) for Contract manufacturing segment ... That the learned DRP has erred, in law and in facts, in upholding the approach of the learned AO/learned TPO in rejecting certain comparable companies listed below, which were identified by the Appellant, by using the negative Profit before Interest and Tax (`PBIT') filter as a comparability criterion. • Akasaka Electronics

India Medtronic Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10 (1)91), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.54 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7935/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7935/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) India Medtronic Private Limited, 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Bldg.No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan:Aaaci-4227-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room No.209, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A With Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Kamath, Cit-Dr With S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A with Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamath, CIT-DR with S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani

Section 143(3)

only restricting his submissions on grounds No.33 to 35, wherein the assessee is seeking working capital adjustment while computing operating margin of comparable companies for the purpose of determining ALP. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that in assessment year 2014-15 in ITA No.7263/Mum/2018 the Tribunal granted working ... pressed. 15. The assessee in ground No.33 of the appeal has prayed for granting working capital adjustment while computing operating margin of comparable companies. We find that similar issue was considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2014-15. The Tribunal restored the issue back

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1382/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvan Oord Dredging & Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Marine Contractors Bv Income-Tax (International 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Taxation)-4(3)(1) Plaza, 166 Cst Road, 16Th Floor, Air India Kalina, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400098 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaach3500M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: K.C. Kanojiya

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

learned TPO/DRP: 12. erred in not considering the economic analysis carried out by the Applicant to arrive at a set of comparable companies; 13. erred in considering the write-back of provision of foreseeable losses of INR 10,31,11,161 as a non-operating item and thereby computing

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

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1777/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 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 250

erred in rejecting the multiple year analysis undertaken by the Appellant for computing the net cost plus margin (NCP) of comparable companies. 4. The CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the judicial principle of 'Impossibility of performance' should have been considered in the facts of the present case ... list of final Comparables: Sitel India Ltd. ITA No.1777/Mum./2012 and ITA no.1426/Mum./2012 The learned TPO AO/CIT(A) erred in selecting the following comparable company ignoring the Rule 10B(2) and Rule 108(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules') governing comparability analysis: i. Iservices India

Dy.CIT-8(3), Mumbai vs. Sitel India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1426/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 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 250

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 250/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.250/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 & Sa No.22/Bang/2022 M/S.Sprinklr India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, East Wing Building Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(2) V. Bengaluru. No.3, Block B, Divyashree 770 Town Centre, Off Hal Airport Road, Yamlur P.O. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan : Aaqcs9370N. (Appellant/Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2022 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 18.02.2022. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Sprinklr Us. It Provides Software Development Services To Its Parent Company. For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 31.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.24,99,66,540. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued. During The 2 It(Tp)A No.250/Bang/2022 & Sa 22/B/2022. M/S.Sprinklr India Private Limited. Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter 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 Associated Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide His Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act Dated 27.01.2021 Determined The Tp Adjustment Of Rs.12,63,71,153. The Details Of The Tp Adjustment Made By The Tpo Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 92C

learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. It was submitted by the learned DR that if the turnover of a comparable company is less or more than 10 times the turnover of the assessee, then it cannot be considered as a comparable company ... companies as per the report of Dun and Bradstreet. As regards the specific plea of the learned DR that if turnover of a comparable company is less or more than 10 times the turnover of the assessee, then it cannot be considered as a comparable company, we find this plea

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

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

ITA 206/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 206/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Epson India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 12Th Floor, The Milenia, Commissioner Of Tower A, Income Tax, No. 1,Murphy Road, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ulsoor, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 008. Pan: Aaace7858F Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Orders Passed By Learned Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income- Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred As "Ao" For Brevity), Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tp) — 1(2)(1), Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred As "Tpo" For Brevity) & The Honourable Drp-1

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha

lower authorities have erred in: (i) Not making proper adjustment for enterprise level and transactional level differences between the Appellant and the comparable companies: (ii) Not providing working capital adjustment while computing the Arm's length price; and (iii) Not recognizing that the Appellant was insulated from risks, as against ... observations of DRP/TPO as supported by Ld.CIR DR, in denying working capital adjustment due to absence of details for working out adjustments in comparable companies chosen. If we appreciate the argument advanced by Ld.CIT.DR, there would remain no comparables for the purpose of comparability analysis to determine

M/S Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 107/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

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

107/Bang/2019 4.4. The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in not applying an upper- turnover filter to identify comparable companies. However, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO has applied a lower turnover filter and has accordingly rejected comparable companies with turnover less than INR 1 crore. The Hon'ble DRP erred

J.P. Morgan India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1502/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Operating Profit/Operating cost (OP/OC) as the profit level indicator. The assessee’s margin was 19.13%. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had selected comparable companies using a blend of companies engaged in investment/merchant banking and companies engaged in providing consultancy/research and advisory services. The average mean margin of comparable ... claimed its 3 J.P.Morgan India Pvt.Ltd. transactions to be at arms length. The TPO, however, rejected the transfer pricing report and he selected certain comparable companies and accordingly made transfer pricing adjustment. After the DRP order, the Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.8,69,81,396/- for this segment

M/S. Yahoo Software Development India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 178/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 178/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Yahoo Software Development India Pvt. Ltd., Torrey Pines, The Joint Embassy Golf Links Commissioner Of Business Park, Income-Tax, Off Indira Nagar – Special Range – 7, Koramangala Vs. Bengaluru. Intermediate Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan: Aaacy1876D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Amulaya, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25/01/2022 Passed By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Amulaya, Advocate

Section 92A(2)(a)

Systems Ltd. by observing as under: “32. At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has prayed for exclusion of 4 comparable companies that remain after the order of the DRP viz., Persistent Systems Ltd., Infosys Ltd., Mindtree Ltd. and L&T Infotech Ltd. He brought ... with regard to onsite revenue filter by pointing out that onsite revenue is substantial and therefore this company should not be regarded as a comparable company with a company which does not have any onsite revenue. In this regard, the ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision

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

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

ITA 2579/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2579/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Subex Ltd., The Deputy Rmz Ecoworld, Commissioner Of Outer Ring Road, Income Tax, Devarabisanahalli, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Erroneous Transfer Pricing Adjustments Arising From Interest On Trade Receivables 1.1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 6(1)(2), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer' Or 'Ld. Ao') / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Circle - 1(3)(1) ('Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

pricing its transactions with its AEs and could be verified to be arm's length using a working capital adjustment even on the comparable companies purportedly selected by the TPO in the transfer pricing order. 1.6. Without prejudice to above, the Hon'ble DRP erred in not adjudicating the Appellant ... contention against the comparable companies purportedly selected by the Ld. TPO as well as not adjudicating the Appellant's contention that the adjustment value on software development income, if any, ought to be restricted to the extent of the international transactions (i.e. proportionate adjustment) with the Associated Enterprises i.e., being

Accenture Solutions Pvt Ltd. (Asol) As A Successor to Accenture Serivces Pvt Ltd (Aspl), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8008/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Accenture Solutions The Dy. Commissioner O Pvt. Ltd. (‘Asol’), Income Tax, (As A Successor To Circle 14(1)(1), Accenture Services Pvt. 475, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. (‘Aspl’) Which Has M.K. Road, Merged Into Asol With An Mumbai - 400020 Effective Date Of 1 Vs. December 2016) Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off L.B.S Marg, Mumbai – 400 079 Pan: Aacca8997K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

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

rendering of IT services under DCA and making modifications to this analysis in a subjective, arbitrary and inconsistent manner. Accept/Reject criteria adopted while selecting comparables companies 6. Erred in applying the accept / reject criteria / filters in an arbitrary, subjective, inconsistent and erroneous manner for the purpose of selection of comparables ... applying a threshold of 75% for the export earnings filter as against a threshold of 25% of revenues applied by the Appellant. Rejection of comparable companies 10. Erred in accepting Infosys Limited as comparable for benchmarking the IT services transaction disregarding the fact that the company is functionally different from

Ntt Data Information Processing Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The 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

ITA 297/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)

Learned TPO/ AO/ DRP erred in law and facts, by incorrectly applying the following quantitative and qualitative filters: a) Rejecting certain comparable companies for having different accounting year/ financial year (i.e. companies having accounting year/ financial year other than March 31 or companies whose financial statements were for a period ... than 25% of total revenue) - An RPT filter for the expense transactions only (RPT expenses greater than 25% of total expenses) c) Rejecting certain comparable companies using employee cost greater than 25% of the total operating revenues as a comparability criterion. d) Rejecting certain comparable companies using export earnings greater

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 198/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(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 16% (65th percentile) as arm’s length range with the median of 14% and since

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 197/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(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, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 196/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 195/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

Altico Capital India Private Limited ( Formerly Clearwater Capital Partners (I) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 424/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 250

cita erred in holding that M/s.ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd, a become bench the of the ass and has in directing to include this comparable company to benchmark the transaction of the ass and has erred in directing to include this comparable in the set of the comparables, without appreciating ... Sacs of the care and in tow the learned CITA) erred in holding that M/s. Future Capital Investment Advisory Services as a comparable company benchmark the transaction of assessee and has directing to include this comparable in the set of the comparables without appreciating the fact that M/s. Future Capital

Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)- 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Clearwater Capital Partners India Private Limited (Now Known As Altico Capital India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 11/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 250