“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

Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 288/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 288/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 143/1, Amani Bellandur Khane Village, The Joint Prestige Excelsior, Commissioner Of Prestige Tech Park, Income-Tax Marathalli – Sarjapur Outer (Osd), Ring Road, Circle 6 (1)(1), Vs. Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaics9204M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi On 30.04.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA

Section 92C(3)Section 92D

contemporaneous data in public domain at the time of preparation of transfer pricing study by the Appellant. Further, the Ld. TPO also disregarded the comparable companies arrived at in the Transfer Pricing Study without considering the functional and risk analysis of the Appellant. Page ... upholding the action of the Ld. TPO/ NeAC in arbitrarily accepting companies without considering the turnover and size of the Appellant and such comparable companies. 5. Significant research and development ('R&D') activity 5.1. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the action of the Ld. TPO/ NeAC in selecting

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. 24/7 Customer Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 228/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 228/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. 24/7 Customer Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Embassy Golflinks Business Commissioner Of Park, Income Tax, Challaghatta Village, Circle – 2 (1)(1), Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore. Vs. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaacz1014A Appellant Respondent : Shri Jeepan Nagpal & Mrs. Assessee By Pallavi Sharma, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2005- 06 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Grounds Of Appeal & Question Of Law: A) The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Fact Seeking Exact Comparability Under Tnnm?

For Respondent: Shri Jeepan Nagpal & Mrs

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

length. h) The learned CIT (A) has erred in granting depreciation adjustment without considering three years data of the taxpayer and the comparable companies as the effect of charge in the rate of depreciation would be there for more than one year.” 2. Brief facts of the case ... wherein it has been held that the depreciation adjustment is to be granted whereby the rates of depreciation is different vis-a-vis the comparable companies. Further as regards whether adjustment should be made in the hands of the tested party i.e., the assessee or the comparable companies, the Mumbai

M/S Harman International (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 49/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.49/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation India Private Limited, Income Tax, 4A, Jupiter, Prestige Technology Park, Circle - 3(1)(2), Sarjapur, Marathahalli Road, Bengaluru. Kadubeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aacch 1585 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

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

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining ALP. The profit level indicator chosen for the purpose of comparing assessee’s margin with that of comparable companies was OP/OC. The assessee’s OP/OC was 19.64%. The assessee chose 9 comparable companies whose average arithmetic mean profit margin was 14.22%. The assessee therefore ... treated as at arm’s length under section 92 of the Act. The TOP accepted 2 out of 9 comparable companies chosen by the assessee and he on his own IT(TP)A No. 49/Bang/2019 Page 4 of 31 identified 6 other comparable companies. The TPO determined ALP as follows

M/S. Bateman Engineering (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1139/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Years : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R. Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154Section 92C

transfer pricing adjustment to Rs.54,033,031. The said adjustment was arrived by the TPO as under: • The TPO revised the set of comparable companies proposed in the original TP order for the engineering design services segment, which was construed as IT enabled functions. The NCP of the revised

Loreal India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 802/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

order has instead of examining whether or not the method adopted to determine the ALP is the most appropriate method or whether the comparable companies selected are appropriate or not, has gone into the question of determining the need for such services, proof of rendition of such services, commercial expediency

L' Oreal India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre/ Dy CIT-Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1198/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Altisource Business Solutions India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 164/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 162/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pritech Park, 3Rd & 5Th Floors Of Wing A & The Deputy 4Th Floor Of Wing B, Commissioner Of Block No. 12, Pritech Park, Income Tax, Survey No. 51-64/4, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Vs. Sarjapur Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaaco9467A Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 164/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 (By Revenue) : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Susan Dolores George Revenue By Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 30-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against Order Dated 31.08.2017 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 92C(3)(a)

cogent reasons; 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts, by upholding the action of the learned TPO/A0 of disregarding certain comparable companies selected by the Appellant in the TP Documentation and instead conducted fresh search and thereby erroneously selected additional comparable companies for determination ... learned CIT (A) /learned TPO/ AO erred in not applying the upper limit on the sales turnover filter while selecting the comparable companies, despite of the fact that the lower limit on the sales turnover filter was applied for comparability analysis. f. The learned AO/learned TPO/learned CIT (A) erred

M/S Tokai Rika Minda India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cicle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1513/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

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

public domain. Accordingly, the learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in not excluding depreciation while computing the operating margin of the Appellant and the comparable companies. 8. The learned AO/ learned TPO /Hon'ble DRP has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant is only in its third year ... incurring huge expenses during the year. 10. The learned AO/ learned TPO /Hon'ble DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that since the comparable companies proposed by the learned TPO are well established in the industry, appropriate adjustment on account of under- utilization of capacity ought to be granted

Liebherr India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2169/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

granting the Appellant an adjustment for the difference in the custom duty element in the value of imports between the Appellant and the comparable companies. 2 Assessment Year: 2012-13 1.6. Without prejudice to the forgoing, the AO/ DRP/ TPO after making a transfer pricing adjustment in respect ... gross profit margin for the trading segment at 0.28% and benchmarked the same against the arithmetic mean of the gross profit margin of the comparable companies identified by the Appellant in its own Transfer Pricing Report which was computed at 29.88%. Thus, TPO proposed upwards transfer pricing adjustment

Binod Kumar Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1479/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

erred in not appreciating that the interest cost has already been factored in the higher margin earned by the Appellant vis-à-vis the comparable companies in the sale of content segment. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO, based on the directions

Multi Screen Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1429/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs. Multi Screen Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1178/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

Multi Screen Media P. Ltd ( Formerly Knon As Set India P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7721/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

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

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

ITA 252/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.252/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mindteck India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A.M.R. Tech Park, Block 1, 3Rd Floor, Circle – 4(1)(1), No.664, 23/24, Hosur Main Road, Begur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 068. Pan : Aaach 1072 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

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 15.66% by the assessee in its TP study. The operating income was Rs.82 ... referred to by the AO, accepted TNMM as the MAM and also used the same PLI for comparison i.e., OP/OC. 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

M/S. Walvoil Fluid Power (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1839/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

including M/s. Yuken India Limited as comparable and in doing so it failed to appreciate that the valves manufactured by the comparable company is only one of the product in the products list, and no separate figures for the relevant segment are available in the Annual report of that company ... absence of segmental data this company should not be accepted. The contentions of the assessee are examined carefully. Hydraulic pumps manufactured by the comparable company are very similar to assessee's hydraulic products and fluid power products. The TPO in his order dated 19.10.2010 at para-3 has clearly identified

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

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

ITA 35/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

international transaction of the 'Provision of IT Enabled data conversion services'. This can be done by increasing the revenue charged by the comparable companies with the amount of interest for the period between that allowed by them in realization of invoices and 150 days as allowed by the assessee

M/S Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3368/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.3368/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Pritech Park, Block Nok.12, 3Rd Floor, 5Th Ward – 1(1)(1), Floor, B-Wing & 4Th Floor, B-Wing, Bengaluru. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru-560 103. Pan : Aaaco 9467 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

most appropriate method for determining ALP. The PLI chosen for the purpose of comparing of the assessee’s margin with that of the comparable companies was OP and OC. The OP/OC of the assessee was arrived at 15%. The assessee chose the comparable companies with that of the assessee ... accept the claim of the assessee and rejected the TP analysis of the assessee. The TPO selected the following comparable companies and determined the ALP of the international transaction as follows: IT(TP)A No.3368/Bang/2018 Page 4 of 24 “SWD Segment Amounts in Rs. Lakh S OP/OC (in %) OR/SALES

Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd.[As A Successor to Positive Packaging Industries Ltd], Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 14 (2)91), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8042/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

operating cost from export of manufactured finished goods and raw materials / consumables to AEs. The assessee compared its margins with 12 comparable companies listed in pages 4 & 5 of the order of the ld. TPO whose margin were in the range of 2.84% to 7.06%. The median of the aforesaid ... treated to be at arm’s length as assessee’s margin fall within the range of the comparables. The segmental results of the comparable companies were furnished by the assessee before the ld. TPO. However, the ld TPO rejected the same by stating that the same is not on actual

Enem Nostrum Remedies Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT -9(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1688/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee LondheFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92Section 92B

Year: 2013-14 Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant has earned higher margin than comparable companies, and such higher margins compensate for the credit period extended to AEs, and therefore, no further transfer pricing adjustment is called

Hydac(India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6634/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

business of manufacturing certain electrical items. According to the learned AR manufacturing activity contributes 2.27% of the turnover. The assessee did not select any comparable companies in its transfer pricing study on the reasoning that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing/assembling of more than 20,000 items ... enterprise which can be functionally comparable with the assessee. However during the course of proceedings before learned TPO, the assessee furnished seven comparable companies, vide its letter dated 7.4.2011. The Assessing Officer noticed that the reporting period of three companies were different from that of the assessee company. Accordingly