“comparable companies”

Red Hat India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

No.18 raised by the assessee for A.Y.2012-13 is seeking working capital adjustment to be considered for the difference in working capital levels between the comparable companies and the assessee. With regard to international transaction of provision of marketing services to Red Hat US, the assessee is seeking for working capital ... working capital adjustment shall be eligible to the assessee and the same shall be reckoned for the difference in working capital levels between the comparable companies and the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had indeed furnished the workings for working capital adjustments before the ld. TPO as is evident in page

Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

manufacturing segment on account of its underutilized manufacturing capacity for the year under consideration vis-â-vis the operating margins earned by the comparable companies. The learned AO / TPO / DRP has misconstrued the facts and erroneously believed the appellant of claiming capacity adjustment for under-utilized capacity sustained ... FIAT India Private Limited ITA No. 1848/Mum/2009 The learned AO / TPO/ DRP erred in rejecting Ural India Limited and Force Motor Limited as a comparable company to the appellant's HCV segment Mahindra Trucks & Buses Ltd.; AY 13-14 on the ground that volume of turnover and functionality were incomparable

Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. Income Tax, 10(1)(1), Chakala, Andheri (E), R.No.209, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0964P

should have been taken as a tested party and since the overall margin of the AEs is lower than the margin of the comparable companies, therefore, the impugned transaction of M/s Hindustan Dorr Oliver Limited; AY: 13-14 civil work expenditure has to be treated as being ... Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee as no reliable documents in support of internal CUP were produced. He therefore, selected 9 comparables companies, adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method, determined OP/OI as the profit level indicator, arrived at M/s Hindustan Dorr Oliver

Accc 30, Mumbai vs. United Shippers Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir Income-Tax, Circle-30 R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0764C The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-30 United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Nos.3036 & 2986/Mum/2012 United Shippers Ltd; AY 2007-08 indicator of operating profit to operating income/sales considering assessee as a tested party selected eight comparable companies. The assessee was given an opportunity to rebut the computation made by the learned transfer-pricing officer. After considering the objection of the assessee ... learned transfer pricing officer considered that all these eight comparable companies are having similar functional profile, whose arithmetic mean PLI was 13.84% and therefore the learned transfer pricing officer adopted the operating profit level indicator of 13.84% on the gross revenue of Rs. 205,87,97,018/– and determined

Ghetai Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD. 9(1)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Infinity Mall Bhawan, Churchgate Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaccg3494K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

ld.AO substituted the Most Appropriate Method from CPM to the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The ld. AO made benchmarking by introducing six comparable companies and arrived at the arithmetic mean margin of the comparables at 10.87%. This was compared with the assessee’s margin ... assessee from time to time and the same were duly granted. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had pleaded that the six comparable companies chosen by the ld. AO were never put to the assessee for its rebuttal and accordingly, sought for inspection of the assessment records to understand

B. Barun Medical (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Us.

course of hearing, the ld. AR laid more emphasis on adjudication of ground No.1.5 seeking for adoption of correct gross profit margin of the comparable company ADS Diagnostics Ltd., According to the ld. AR, the ld. TPO while giving effect to the directions of the ld. DRP did not follow ... directions and proceeded to adopt the wrong margins of this comparable company ADS Diagnostics Ltd., Hence, we deem it fit to address the ground of inclusion of comparable company ADS Diagnostics Ltd., and its correct gross margins thereon to resolve the dispute before us. 2.1. We have heard the rival

Hsbc Asset Management, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

segmental reporting of the assessee and benchmarked the international transaction with AE at entity level. The ld. TPO determined the final list of comparable companies M/s. HSBC Asset Management India Pvt. Ltd., engaged in the business of asset management and selected 15 comparable companies thereon and arrived at the arithmetic ... risk service provider as it is rendering only non-binding investment advisory services to its AE. We find that assessee had selected comparable companies for benchmarking the aforesaid provision of non-binding investment advisory services by taking the comparable companies engaged in investment advisory sector. But the same had been

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

earned Rs.19,17,370/- for provision of the said services. The assessee chose seven comparables and applying single year updated margins of seven comparable companies arrived at the arithmetic mean of 3.07% applying Operating Profit / Operating Cost (OP/OC) as Profit Level Indicator (PLI). This arithmetic mean margin