“tested party”

Bestseller Fashion India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 9(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Bestseller Fashion India Private Limited Asst. Cit-9(2)(1) The Lalit Residency, 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. Lalit Hotelsahar Airport Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aaecb 2906 M (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Jabir Contractor Assessee By Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2024

internal' or 'external' costs, but rather on a comparability (including functional) analysis, and in particular on a determination of the value added by the tested party in relation to those costs." 42. Further, OECD in ITS 2009 Transfer Pricing Guidelines has laid down as under : "7.36 When

Jushi India Fiberglass Private Limited, Lower Parel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 6(1)(2), Churchgate, Mumbai

In the results, in the comparability study after giving working capital

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

considered view that application of any method as MAM for the determination of ALP margin depends upon the functional profile of the tested party and on the facts of the case in hand, in the light of the functional profile of the assessee RPM is the MAM. With the above

Advance Power Display Systems Ltd, Andheri - East vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -9(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Church Gate, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

accepted by the TPO. It was also noted by the TPO that OP/OC taken as PLI and the assessee itself was taken as the tested party to justify the ALP under TNMM. 8. The assessee selected the following three comparable companies:- Sr. No. Name of the Company OP/OC(%) 1 Circuit

Advance Power Display Systems Ltd, Seepz, Andheri- East vs. Asst. Commission of Income Tax-9(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

accepted by the TPO. It was also noted by the TPO that OP/OC taken as PLI and the assessee itself was taken as the tested party to justify the ALP under TNMM. 8. The assessee selected the following three comparable companies:- Sr. No. Name of the Company OP/OC(%) 1 Circuit

Advance Power Display Systems Ltd, Seepz Sez, Andheri East vs. Asst Commisioner of Income Tax 9(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan Church Gate, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

accepted by the TPO. It was also noted by the TPO that OP/OC taken as PLI and the assessee itself was taken as the tested party to justify the ALP under TNMM. 8. The assessee selected the following three comparable companies:- Sr. No. Name of the Company OP/OC(%) 1 Circuit

Advance Power Display Systems Ltd, Seepz, Andheri - East vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 9(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Church Gate, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

accepted by the TPO. It was also noted by the TPO that OP/OC taken as PLI and the assessee itself was taken as the tested party to justify the ALP under TNMM. 8. The assessee selected the following three comparable companies:- Sr. No. Name of the Company OP/OC(%) 1 Circuit

DCIT 3(4), Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

complexity of function performed by the assessee was more than that of the AEs. So the AEs could well be considered as the tested party and appropriate benchmarking could be done considering the value addition as the benchmark for profit comparison in the AE case. 8. Taking note ... cause notice was issued to the assessee asking it to explain as to why TAIC and other AEs should not be considered as the tested parties for benchmarking of ALP of the transactions. The assessee was also asked as to why the operating margins of foreign comparables as selected

Tata Consultance Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

complexity of function performed by the assessee was more than that of the AEs. So the AEs could well be considered as the tested party and appropriate benchmarking could be done considering the value addition as the benchmark for profit comparison in the AE case. 8. Taking note ... cause notice was issued to the assessee asking it to explain as to why TAIC and other AEs should not be considered as the tested parties for benchmarking of ALP of the transactions. The assessee was also asked as to why the operating margins of foreign comparables as selected

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

order and submitted that the captive power generating unit which is eligible for deduction u/s.80IA, not only is to be taken as a tested party but also the FAR analysis has to be done from power generating entities and not the distribution entities because distribution companies incurred various other costs ... that, what is to be benchmarked is the profits of the eligible unit and therefore, eligible unit alone should be taken as a tested party and the FAR analysis has to be done of the eligible unit vis-à-vis the other units which are generating electricity. Lastly