“comparable companies”

DCIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Diesel Fashion India Reliance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly it is to be dismissed as such

Delhitrib.) wherein it was held that the incurring of high advertisement and marketing expenses by the assessee vis-avis the other comparable companies does not in any manner affect the determination of ALP under the RPM. 19. The above decisions clinch the issue involved in this matter and squarely applicable ... expenses) of the appellant which is 43.83% vis-à-vis the arithmetic mean of the adjusted gross margins (after considering marketing expenses) of the comparable companies considered as comparable by the TPO which is 25.59%. Therefore, even if TPO's contention is accepted that there is difference in level

Morgan Stanley Solutions India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemorgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Circle – 9(2) {Successor To Morgan Stanley Solutions Room No. 261, 2Nd Floor India Pvt. Ltd.,} Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Antena Building No.5 Mumbai - 400020 Sector 30, Mindspace, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400090 Pan: Aadcm7403M Appellant Respondent

complying with the TP documentation requirements Le. using non-contemporaneous data for calculating the ALP of the international transaction; 2.5. In rejecting the comparable companies selected by the Appellant in the TP report, without providing any appropriate reason for rejecting these companies, 2.6. By identifying comparable companies in determining ... prejudice to the above Grounds, the learned AO erred in not granting working capital adjustment to the average Profit Level Indicator of the selected comparable companies; 4. Without prejudice to the above Grounds, by not allowing the adjustment for difference in the level of risks assumed by the Appellant

Red Hat India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

Assessee in the Transfer Pricing Documentation (“TP Documentation’) and arbitrary applying incorrect quantitative filters without providing any cogent reasons; 1.2 rejecting various comparable companies selected by the Assessee in the TP Documentation basis the provisions of Rule 10B(2) of the Rules; 1.3 introducing additional companies without appreciating that such ... analysis carried out by the Assessee in the TP Documentation and & arbitrarily applying incorrect quantitative filters without providing any cogent reasons; 2.2 rejecting various comparable companies selected by the Assessee in the TP Documentation basis the provisions of Rule 10B(2) of the Rules; 2.3 introducing additional companies without appreciating

Sabmiller India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disputed by the lower authorities at all. Moreover, the information on the margins earned by the AE and information of margins of comparable companies of AE were very much available in the instant case for carrying out the M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited benchmarking analysis smoothly. Hence, we have ... accordingly, assessee had concluded its payment of commission fees to be at arm‟s length. Admittedly, the agreement for the four comparable companies was searched from Royalty Stat Database. In our considered opinion, if the ld. TPO is not in agreement with the benchmarking M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited