“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

Ecoenergy Insights Ltd ( Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Systems P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2321/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 92C

companies based on inappropriate and unreasonable criteria. 14. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, net margins of certain Comparable companies appear to have been wrongly computed by the Ld. TPO when Compared with Annual reports of these companies. The Appellant has not been able ... companies based on inappropriate and unreasonable criteria. 20. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, net margins of certain Comparable companies appear to have been wrongly computed by the Ld. TPO/AO/DRP when compared with Annual reports of these companies. The Appellant has not been able

Dgs Technical Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1095/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

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

assessee has adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate 14 DGS Technical Services Private Limited Method (MAM) and selected eight comparable companies, with a 35th percentile of -1.05 percent and the 65th percentile of 3.52% with a median of 1.32%. The assessee has applied various filters ... benchmarking analysis In other words, the Ld. TPO has not examined the FAR analysis of the assessee company with the comparable companies selected by the assessee before rejecting the TP documentation submitted by the assessee company. Further, going by the order passed by the Ld. TPO under Section 92CA

Bundy India Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, Ground Number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1403/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1403/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Bundy India Limited The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Plot No.2, Circle-1(1) V/S. Gidc Industrial Estate, Baroda Makarpura Vadodaria - 390 010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacb 3039 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shree Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shree Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(3)

erred in law and on facts in disregarding methodical search process undertaken by the appellant and rejecting 6 (six) out of 8 (eight) comparable companies selected by the Appellant, without taking cognizance of Rule 10B(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). 4.5. The Id. AO/CIT(A) erred ... facts in rejecting various filters applied by the appellant while selecting comparable companies. 4.6. The Id. AO/CIT(A) erred in selecting additional alleged 7 (seven) comparable companies. 4.7. The Id. AO/CIT(A) violated the principle of natural justice by not providing/sharing complete details of the benchmarking analysis carried

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Dehradun

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 168/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

ADIT in ITA No. 4561/Del/2013 for AY 2010 assessee had offered 2% of which was reworked by the ldCIT(A) @5.08% after ignoring the comparable companies (KOA tools India Ltd) which had incurred loss. The relevant observations of this tribunal are reproduced below: “14. It was argued that ignoring ... TIOL-31- ITAT-CHD-SB, we hold that Assem Global, POCL Enterprises Ltd and Veritas (India) Ltd should also be included as comparable companies and when these three are included, the weighted average margin of the comparable companies works out @1.69% and the assessee itself had attributed 2% as profit

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 167/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 166/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 165/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue's are dismissed

ITA 164/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalι.Τ.Α. No. 168/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 163/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 164/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2018-19) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 165/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2019-20) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 166/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 167/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2021-22) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Weatherford Oil Tools M.E Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Limited. 6Th Floor, Vaman Centre, Makwana Road, J. B. Nagar, Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan: Aaacw1524G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv, Sh. Amit Arora, Adv, Sh. Shivamyadav, Adv & Ms. Somya Singh, Adv Revenue By Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Cit(A)-Noida, 2 ('Ld. Cit(A)' For Short), Delhi Dated 31/07/2024 For The Assessment Years2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively. 2. All The Above Appeals Are Having Identical Issues To Be Decided, Therefore, The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Were Heard Together & Decided In This Common Order. 2

Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

ADIT in ITA No. 4561/Del/2013 for AY 2010 assessee had offered 2% of which was reworked by the ldCIT(A) @5.08% after ignoring the comparable companies (KOA tools India Ltd) which had incurred loss. The relevant observations of this tribunal are reproduced below: "14. It was argued that ignoring ... TIOL-31-ITAT-CHD-SB, we hold that Aseem Global, POCL Enterprises Ltd and Veriton India Ltd should also be included as comparable companies and when these three are included, the weighted average margin of the comparable companies works out @1.69% and the assessee itself had attributed 2% profit

Dy. Commississioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue’s are dismissed

ITA 163/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 448Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Weg Industries (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assessing Officer, Bmtc Building

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

ITA 2501/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

For Respondent: Shri Sumeet Khurana , CA

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C(3)

computation of the ALP is not reliable or correct; despite the fact that the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP has selected same comparable companies as selected by Appellant in TP documentation, ii) rejecting the segment level margin of the Appellant without providing any cogent reasons on rejection of segmentation ... whereas the Appellant was not provided with the computation of operating margins of comparables; ii) computing operating profit margin ('OPM') of comparable companies while performing the comparability analysis. INTEREST ON RECEIVABLES AND INTEREST ON UNBILLED REVENUE 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Erevmax Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., Tp-1, Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2551/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Us In The Paper Book)

Section 143(3)

Profit ("OP")/ Operating Cost ("OC"). As part of the TNMM analysis, the undersigned has undertaken comparability 3 Erevmax Technologies Pvt. Ltd. analysis for uncontrolled comparable companies on public database, applied the relevant filters, arrived at 11 (eleven) comparable companies to the assessee in respect of the transaction undertaken ... external comparable to verify the Profit Split. As a result, the adoption of TNMM Method, the comparison of the Profitability rate with eleven external comparable companies Transfer Pricing Order, and the consequent determination of ALP amount of Rs.17678365/- being 16.85% of the Turnover of the Appellant

Juniper Networks Solution India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC Itd, New Delhi

In the result, ground no 3 raised by the assessee is allowed in its favour

ITA 4400/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Juniper Networks Solution India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assessment Unit, Unit No.Iia, 06Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Nfac Itd, Parliament Street, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaecj1345A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Shri Sandeep Bhalla, Advocate Shri Anurag Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.07.2024 Passed By The Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO in not granting risk adjustment to the profit Level Indicator ('PLI') of comparable companies as required by Rule 10B(3) read with Rule 10B(1)(e) of Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). 7. On the facts

Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly Known As Allscripts (India) LLP), Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 92C(1)

Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT benchmarking analysis. In doing so, the Ld. DRP/ Ld. AD/ Ld. TPO has rejected functionally comparable companies and accepted certain functionally dissimilar companies. The Appellant prays that the filters applied/modified by the Ld. TPO be rejected and the transfer pricing benchmarking analysis ... times lesser and 10 times higher than the turnover of the Appellant, in doing so, the Ld. DRP/Ld. AD/Ld. TPO has rejected functionally comparable companies selected by the Appellant. The Appellant prays that the arbitrary turnover filter adopted by the Ld. TPO be rejected and the functionally comparable companies

Schneider Electric Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), C. R. Building, Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly

ITA 5589/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22 Schneider Electric Private Vs Dcit, Limited, Circle 22(2), C-56, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Delhi. Phase-2, West Delhi, Delhi – 110 064. Pan: Abacs1671F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms Tanya, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.10.2024 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Ay 2021-22. 2. Heard & Perused The Records. On The Basis Of Submission & Material On Record It Comes Up That Assesse/ Appellant (Sepl) Was Incorporated In 2018 As A Subsidiary Of Schneider Electric Industries Sas (A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Schneider Electric Se) & Belgium. It Is A Private Limited Company

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

comparables that do not have segmental information as part of financial statements; 4.5 disregarded supplementary documentary analysis submitted before the Ld. TPO providing additional comparable companies that undertake services that are akin to Contract R&D services provided by the Appellant; 4.6 disregarding various comparability adjustments in determining ... been selected are primarily engaged in software development services which are not akin to the services rendered by the Appellant. The final list of comparable companies as selected by the Ld. TPO after giving effect to the directions of 6 Hon’ble DRP to benchmark the transaction of provision

Assimilate Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle, 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is dismissed

ITA 5357/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassimilate Solutions India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Circle 1 (1), Chartered Accountants, New Delhi. C – 763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan :Aakca4501H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharam Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2021-22 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. M/S. Assimilate Solutions India Private Limited, The Assessee Was Incorporated On 19.04,2012 & Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

remains that this company fulfils the accepted turnover filter of more than Rs. 1 crorein current FY 2020-21. c. Out of the 8 comparable companies selected by the Assessee, 5 companies were retained by the TPO to be comparable but the TPO made inadvertent/factual errors apparent from the record ... while computing OP/OC margin of these 5 comparable companies as retained by him. d. TPO included 9 additional companies listed at para 4 of his order to be comparable for benchmarking purposes despite the fact that they were not strictly comparable as per the rules of comparability under rule

Tupperware India Private Limited, Connaught Place New Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Through Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ip Estate New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly

ITA 4475/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92BSection 92C

delayed receivables. The ld. AR has submitted that the ld. TPO has ignored the fact that the post undertaking working capital adjustment of comparable companies selected in TP documentation, the margins earned by appellant are more than that of comparable companies. In this context, the ld. counsel has taken ... Cotton Naturals, upheld the enhancement done by the ld. TPO. Since the case of assessee is that post undertaking working capital adjustment of comparable companies selected in TP documentation, the margins earned by appellant are more than that of comparable companies. We consider it appropriate to remit the issue with

Lg Electronics India Private Limited, Mathura Road, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 433/DEL/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

analysis of AMP expenditure applied Bright Line Test by comparing ratio of AMP expenditure to the sales of the assessee with that of the comparable companies and held that any expenditure in excess of bright line was for promotion of the brand/ trade name owned by the AE, requiring suitable ... line test compared AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee as percentage of total turnover @9.56% with average AMP expenses of of 3.69% of various comparable companies. The TPO concluded that AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee was for brand promotion and development of marketing intangible

Lg Electronics India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 430/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2035/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

DCIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi vs. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1267/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)