← All Phrases

“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emerson Electric Company (India)Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2) (1) Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Mumbai

ITA 933/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: ShriDhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 144Section 153Section 92C

process carried out by the Appellant in the TP Study; c) Not following a structured search process and thus resorting to cherry picking of comparable companies; d) Applying filters for selecting companies by disregarding the reasoning provided by the Appellant; e) Including certain companies which are functionally not comparable ... Excluding certain companies which are functionally comparable; g) Rejecting additional comparable companies, identified by the Appellant, which passed all the filters applied by the Learned TPO without giving any cogent reasons; and h) Selecting companies which fails Learned TPO's own filters. The Appellant therefore submits and prays that

First Credit Ites P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt.Dy/CIT/ITO, National E -Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1183/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am First Credit Ites P. Ltd. The Addl. Commissioner Of D-211, Ghatkopar Indl. Estate, Income-Tax Officer Behind R-City Mall, National E-Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Vs. Centre, Ghatkopar West, Delhi-110003 Mumbai-400 086 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aabcf5210B Assessee By : Shri Sunil Moti Lala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

stated that rule 10(1)(e) of the Act requires comparability analysis. Therefore, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer carried out fresh search, selected seven comparable companies whose arms length margin was computed at 19.81%. Consequently, Arms Length Price of the international transaction of ₹15,68,06,068/- was determined

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

most appropriate method for determining ALP. The profit level indicator (PLI) chosen for the purpose of comparing assessee’s margin with that of the comparable companies was on OP/OC. The assessee’s OP/OC was 5% on cost. The assessee chose 19 comparable companies whose average profit margin ... assessee claimed that the price received was within the (+) (-) 5% range of comparable companies and therefore the remuneration received for MSS was at arm’s length. The TPO rejected the TP study and he chose final set of 7 comaprable companies whose average profit margin was 24.80%. The TPO ultimately

M/S Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 365/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

most appropriate method for determining ALP. The profit level indicator (PLI) chosen for the purpose of comparing assessee’s margin with that of the comparable companies was on OP/OC. The assessee’s OP/OC was 5% on cost. The assessee chose 19 comparable companies whose average profit margin ... assessee claimed that the price received was within the (+) (-) 5% range of comparable companies and therefore the remuneration received for MSS was at arm’s length. The TPO rejected the TP study and he chose final set of 7 comaprable companies whose average profit margin was 24.80%. The TPO ultimately

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore vs. M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1447/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

most appropriate method for determining ALP. The profit level indicator (PLI) chosen for the purpose of comparing assessee’s margin with that of the comparable companies was on OP/OC. The assessee’s OP/OC was 5% on cost. The assessee chose 19 comparable companies whose average profit margin ... assessee claimed that the price received was within the (+) (-) 5% range of comparable companies and therefore the remuneration received for MSS was at arm’s length. The TPO rejected the TP study and he chose final set of 7 comaprable companies whose average profit margin was 24.80%. The TPO ultimately

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore vs. M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1446/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

most appropriate method for determining ALP. The profit level indicator (PLI) chosen for the purpose of comparing assessee’s margin with that of the comparable companies was on OP/OC. The assessee’s OP/OC was 5% on cost. The assessee chose 19 comparable companies whose average profit margin ... assessee claimed that the price received was within the (+) (-) 5% range of comparable companies and therefore the remuneration received for MSS was at arm’s length. The TPO rejected the TP study and he chose final set of 7 comaprable companies whose average profit margin was 24.80%. The TPO ultimately

M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1076/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

most appropriate method for determining ALP. The profit level indicator (PLI) chosen for the purpose of comparing assessee’s margin with that of the comparable companies was on OP/OC. The assessee’s OP/OC was 5% on cost. The assessee chose 19 comparable companies whose average profit margin ... assessee claimed that the price received was within the (+) (-) 5% range of comparable companies and therefore the remuneration received for MSS was at arm’s length. The TPO rejected the TP study and he chose final set of 7 comaprable companies whose average profit margin was 24.80%. The TPO ultimately

M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1075/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

most appropriate method for determining ALP. The profit level indicator (PLI) chosen for the purpose of comparing assessee’s margin with that of the comparable companies was on OP/OC. The assessee’s OP/OC was 5% on cost. The assessee chose 19 comparable companies whose average profit margin ... assessee claimed that the price received was within the (+) (-) 5% range of comparable companies and therefore the remuneration received for MSS was at arm’s length. The TPO rejected the TP study and he chose final set of 7 comaprable companies whose average profit margin was 24.80%. The TPO ultimately

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax(Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S. Texas Instruments(India) Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

most appropriate method for determining ALP. The profit level indicator (PLI) chosen for the purpose of comparing assessee’s margin with that of the comparable companies was on OP/OC. The assessee’s OP/OC was 5% on cost. The assessee chose 19 comparable companies whose average profit margin ... assessee claimed that the price received was within the (+) (-) 5% range of comparable companies and therefore the remuneration received for MSS was at arm’s length. The TPO rejected the TP study and he chose final set of 7 comaprable companies whose average profit margin was 24.80%. The TPO ultimately

M/S Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2027/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, AR & Shri PratikFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

deleted by the CIT(A) on the adjustment to Arm's Length Price (ALP) suggested by the TPO. The CIT(A) deleted the 5 comparable companies included by the TPO viz., (i) Infosys Ltd.; (ii) Tata Elxi Ltd. (seg); (iii) Persistent Systems Ltd.; (iv) KALS Information Systems ... view of the above reasons, the learned Authorised Representative pleaded that, this company i.e. Infosys Technologies Ltd., be excluded from the list of comparable companies. ITA Nos.2024 & 2027 /Bang/2017 Page 10 of 32 11.3 Per contra, opposing the contentions of the assessee, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that comparability cannot

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Unisys India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 2024/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, AR & Shri PratikFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

deleted by the CIT(A) on the adjustment to Arm's Length Price (ALP) suggested by the TPO. The CIT(A) deleted the 5 comparable companies included by the TPO viz., (i) Infosys Ltd.; (ii) Tata Elxi Ltd. (seg); (iii) Persistent Systems Ltd.; (iv) KALS Information Systems ... view of the above reasons, the learned Authorised Representative pleaded that, this company i.e. Infosys Technologies Ltd., be excluded from the list of comparable companies. ITA Nos.2024 & 2027 /Bang/2017 Page 10 of 32 11.3 Per contra, opposing the contentions of the assessee, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that comparability cannot

M/S Aci Worldwide Solutions Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 11 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 106/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.106/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Aci Worldwide Solutions The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Bangalore. No.9, Salarpuria Cambridge Mall Bangalore – 560 008. Pan : Aaacv7566R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.05.2022 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 31.01.2011 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Development Services & Sales & Marketing Support Services To Its Associated Enterprises (Aes). The Services Are Provided On Cost Plus Basis. The Assessee Is Also Engaged In Software Distribution Activities. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Reference Was Made To The Tpo To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of International Transactions Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Aes. The 2 It(Tp)A No.106/Bang/2022. M/S.Aci Worldwide Solutions Private Limited. Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.01.2021 U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Following Tp Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

taken the view that turnover is a relevant criterion for choosing companies 6 IT(TP)A No.106/Bang/2022. M/s.ACI Worldwide Solutions Private Limited. as comparable companies in determination of ALP in transfer pricing cases. There is no decision of the jurisdictional High Court on this issue. In the circumstances, following ... High Court on the issue. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we uphold the order of the DRP excluding 5 companies from the list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO on the basis that the 5 companies turnover was much higher compared to that the Assessee. 17.8. In view

M/S. Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 5, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2411/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2411/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ocwen Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pritech Park, Block 12, The Joint Commissioner Unit 2, 5B & 6A Floors, Of Income-Tax, Bellandur Village, Special Range-5, Sarjapur Marathahalli Bangalore. Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaaco3764E Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Vasudevan & Assessee By Ms. Rashmi, Advocates : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24/09/2019 Passed By The Ld.Jcit, Special Range-5, Bangalore Under Section 143 (3) R.W.S 144C (13) Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan &

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 92C

TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in applying the core service income filter of 75% to sales instead of 50%, leading to a narrower set of comparable companies. 5. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in applying export earning filter of 75% of the total sales instead of 25%, leading ... narrower set of comparable companies. 6. The learned AO/leamed TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in not rejecting companies reporting abnormal profits. 7. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in selecting the companies only if the data pertaining to the Financial Year ended March

Capgemini India P.Ltd, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

In the result ground number 12 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 4727/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Income Tax, Army & Navy Bldg, Circle 10(2), 3Rd Floor, R. No. 475, Vs. 148, M.G. Road, Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack2632B Appellant By : Shri M M Golvala, Ar Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri M M Golvala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 1O

part of the cost base of the appellant. The margins so computed are also higher than the arithmetic mean of the margins of the comparable companies computed at 8.69% selected by the assessee. To examine this alternative argument it is necessary to Capgemini India P. Ltd; AY 10-11 examine ... learned transfer pricing Officer u/s 92CA (3) of the act that whether the learned transfer pricing officer has objected to the any of the comparable companies selected by the assessee. On going through the transfer pricing officer’s order, we do not find that learned transfer-pricing officer has disputed

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkaihalli, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

DRP/AO/TPO erred by applying the following quantitative and qualitative filters: at" The learned AO/TPO have erred, in law and in facts, by rejecting certain comparable companies having different accounting year / financial year (i.e., companies having accounting year other that March 31 or companies whose financial statements were for a period ... Private Limited ix. Aspire Systems (India) Private Limited b)The learned AO/ TPO / DRP erred, in law and in facts, in rejecting the following comparable companies selected by the Appellant in its TP documentation even though the companies are functionally comparable to the Appellant: i. Akshay Software Technologies Limited

Frost & Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

since it also requires benchmarking separately. The Learned AR submitted that he has no objection for the same, but pleaded that certain comparable companies selected by the 5 Frost & Sullivan (India) Pvt. Ltd. TPO are not good comparables and his submission is supported by the decisions rendered by the High ... this issue could also be settled at the end of TPO. 12. Explaining further, the Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had selected ten comparable companies for GIC division in its Transfer pricing study. However, the TPO has added six more companies to the list. The Learned AR submitted that

Wills Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1140/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Towers Watson India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of 511/512, Solitaire Corporate Park, Income Tax, Circle-11(3)-1, 151, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Floor Aayakar Andheri (East) , Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 2955 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 92CSection 92C(4)

operating margin of the Appellant; 10. Selecting companies as com parables for benchmarking without providing the search process erred in selecting a set of comparable companies without providing the Appellant with the detailed search process, thereby violating the principles of natural justice; Tower Watson India Private Limited 4 Companies considered ... length operating margin to be 29.49% on operating costs under TNMM, by considering companies which are functionally different from the Appellant as comparable companies; 12. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in failing to adjudicate on the validity of Future Capital Holdings Limited as a comparable company; Incorrect computation

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method, using a PLI consisting of Net Operating Margin on Operating Cost. The arithmetic mean of comparable companies that are engaged in manufacture of Adhesives and that the assessee is set out below for each of the relevant years

Bostik India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2031/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method, using a PLI consisting of Net Operating Margin on Operating Cost. The arithmetic mean of comparable companies that are engaged in manufacture of Adhesives and that the assessee is set out below for each of the relevant years

Bostik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 837/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method, using a PLI consisting of Net Operating Margin on Operating Cost. The arithmetic mean of comparable companies that are engaged in manufacture of Adhesives and that the assessee is set out below for each of the relevant years