“tested party”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C615 judgments

The decision most relied on for tested party is ITO v. E Value Serve.com (75 Taxmann.com 195), cited in 60 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on tested party

ITO v. E Value Serve.com

75 Taxmann.com 195 · 2016 · Reported

citing judgments

In transfer pricing analysis, demanding daily balances for working capital adjustments is impractical and improper; adjustments should be based on opening and closing working capital. Transfer pricing inherently involves estimation to ensure comparability.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. ACIT

68 Taxmann.com 322 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

When benchmarking export transactions, the Associated Enterprise (AE) can be considered the tested party if it possesses the least complex functional analysis. The Assessing Officer's acceptance of a methodology in prior years can also support its use.

Capital IQ Information Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

32 Taxmann.com 21 · 2013 · ITAT

citing judgments

A change in depreciation policy impacts an entity's profitability, which is a key factor in assessing its suitability as a comparable company for transfer pricing analysis.

Skoda Auto India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, Aurangabad

30 SOT 319 · 2009 · ITAT

citing judgments

The Tribunal may allow adjustments for differences between the tested party and comparable companies to eliminate material differences, provided accurate and credible evidence is furnished.

Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

115 TTJ 577 · 2008 · ITAT

citing judgments

The Arm's Length Price (ALP) must be determined on a transaction-by-transaction basis, and transactions should only be evaluated together if they are so closely linked or continuous that they cannot be adequately assessed separately. The 'tested party' for determining ALP should be the least complex entity.

Pr. CIT v. Aptara Technology (P.) Ltd.

92 Taxmann.com 240 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

A comparable company is not suitable if it has a significantly different business model, such as substantially higher outsourcing expenses as a percentage of operating costs, indicating a deviation from the tested party's operations.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax

110 ITD 428 · 2008 · ITAT

citing judgments

The tested party in a transfer pricing analysis should be the entity for which reliable comparable data is readily available and requires the fewest adjustments. This generally means selecting the party with the less complex functional analysis.

Smt. Raj Rani Devi Ramna v. CIT

201 ITR 1032 · 1993 · High Court

citing judgments

The transfer of property does not necessarily occur upon registration; the true test is the intention of the parties and whether there are any conditions precedent like payment of consideration or delivery of the deed.

Judgments citing tested party

M/S Inteva Products India Automotive Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 3357/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

segment of international transaction of manufacturing segment while determining the ALP considering the external TNMM analysis where the AE segment is the tested party.” ( N V VASUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 26th October, 2022. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Inventurus Knowledge Soltions P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing

ITA 2403/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabci 5573 J Co No. 249/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 2403/Mum/2018 For A.Y. 2011–12) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Sc Tiwari/ Ms Umamagswari M, Ars Revenue By : Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri SC Tiwari/For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. AR

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

assessee benchmarked this transactions separately , adopted Transactional Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method selecting the wholly owned subsidiary in US as tested party, conducted search in Standard & Poor's Compustat and Merchant Database, selected nine comparable companies considering the 3 years database financial results holding that (profit level ... assessee to its CO no. 249/Mum/2019 Inventurus Knowledge Solutions Private Limited; A.Y. 2011–12 wholly owned subsidiary, the US subsidiary was taken as a tested party adopting Transactional Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method using profit level indicator of operating profit to operating cost and conducting search

Parexel International Clinical Research Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 189/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Parexel International Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd., Cowrks, Rmz The Assistant Ecoworld, Ground Commissioner Of Floor, Bay Area- Income Tax, Adjacent To Building Circle 5(1)(2), 6A, Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aadcp9318C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandini Shah, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 26/03/2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Chandini Shah, CA

Section 92C

189/Bang/2021 16. Making a working capital adjustment is an attempt to adjust for the differences in time value of money between the tested party and potential comparables, with an assumption that the difference should be reflected in profits. The underlying reasoning is that: ♦ A company will need funding to cover ... factors have to be kept in mind (i) The point in time at which the Receivables, Inventory and Payables should be compared between the tested party and the comparables, whether it should be the figures of receivables, inventory and payable at the year end or beginning of the year

M/.S Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed in respect of the issues argued and considered hereinabove

ITA 2595/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner Of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aaccn1140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29/10/2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate

Section 143(2)

comparables in order to place Page 44 of 51 IT(TP)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 the comparables at the same level as that of the tested party. Any extraordinary items that is found to be present in the comparables in the form of expenses needs to be excluded in case ... similar item is not present in the tested party. We accordingly, direct the Ld.AO/TPO to carry out necessary adjustment in order to iron out the differences between the comparables and the tested party for the purposes of computing the margins. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

Lloyds Offshore Global Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are partly allowed

ITA 194/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

cost of sales. IT(TP)A Nos.27/BANG/2020 & 194/BANG/2021 Page 18 of 31 Hence, in case there are significant differences in working capital between the tested party, i.e. Lloyds India and the comparable companies, an appropriate adjustment may be required for such difference in determining the arm’s length price ... types of inventory) 16. Making a working capital adjustment is an attempt to adjust for the differences in time value of money between the tested party and potential com parables, with an assumption that the difference should be reflected in profits. The underlying reasoning is that: IT(TP)A Nos.27/BANG/2020

M/S. Lloyds Offshore Global Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are partly allowed

ITA 27/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 579/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

support service without appreciating that it is functionally dissimilar as it is engaged in manufacture of machine tools, industry equipments, real estate whereas the tested party (assessee) is engaged in service sector? (Included in 7) 12.2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Management Consulting Services Ltd. as comparable without appreciating that it is having substantially lower turnover i.e. Rs 28.55 crores where as segmental turnover of tested party is Rs 188 crores, overlooking the fact that the huge difference in turnover will defeat the very purpose of benchmarking the transaction? (Included

ACIT -3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-5, Bangalore

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

ITA 342/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.342/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Ocwen Financial Solutions The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax V. Pritech Park, Survey No.51 To Special Range – 5 64/4, Block No.12, Unit 2, 5B & Bangalore. 6A Floors, Bellandur Village, Sarjapur Marathahalli Ring Road Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaaco3764E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, Advocates Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2022 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 30.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Providing It Enabled Services To Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. Usvi. The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Ocwen Asia Holdings Limited, Mauritius. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 29.11.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.93,31,44,800. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

powers of enhancement held that no adjustment should be made to the profit margins on account of working capital differences between the tested party and the comparable companies for the following reasons: (i) The daily working capital levels of the tested party and the comparables was the only reliable basis ... because it is not an exact science. One has to see that reasonable adjustment is being made so as to bring both comparable and test party on same footing. Therefore there is little merit in CIT (A)'s objection on working adjustment based on unavailable daily working capital requirements data

Csav Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1941/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D. Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92D

India) Pvt. Ltd.] ITA no.1941/Del./2015 Indicator (“PLI”) of Operating Profit to Total Cost (“OP/TC”), for benchmarking this transaction. By considering itself as the tested party, assessee identified 15 comparable companies with average PLI of 14.27%. As the assessee computed its own PLI at 14.93%, accordingly, it claimed that ... that even if assessee has taken Infosys BPO Ltd as a comparable in its transfer pricing study report, considering the vast differences with the tested party, Infosys BPO Ltd should be excluded. On the other hand, learned DR vehemently relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities

Softlayer Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 265/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

case appropriate adjustments cannot be made to the uncontrolled transaction, due to lack of data, then the adjustments should be made on the tested party. This proposition was also accepted by the Hon’ble Bench in case of M/s Atmecs Technologies Private Limited vs ITO, Ward ... lack of data, then in order to read the provisions of transfer pricing regulations in harmony, the adjustments should be made on the tested party.” “27. We are of the view that it would be just and appropriate to set aside this issue to the AO/TPO by directing the assessee

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

availed technical services from its AE, viz. style feasibility, engineering feasibility, detailing activities and assembling activities. The assessee has treated the foreign AE as tested party and selected comparables accordingly. The TPO objected to the tested parties selected by the assessee for the reason that the AE was incurring losses ... 1676/Mum/2015 ITA 1739/Mum/2015 AE such as style feasibility, engineering feasibility, detailing activities and assembling activities. 13.3.2. The assessee treated the foreign AE as a tested party on the grounds that it is the less complex entity in the transaction. It selected comparables based on search using the AMADEUS Database

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir -2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1676/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

Technimont Spa India Project Office, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.691/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Tecnimont Spa India बिधम/ Additional Director Of Office Income Tax-(It)-Range-2 Vs. Tecnimont Icb House, 1St Floor, R. No. 108, Chincholi Bunder, 504 Link Scindia House, Ballard Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- Estate, N. M. Road, 400064. Mumbai-400038. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact8224A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. P. Lohia/ Shri Pranav Gandhi Revenue By: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter “Ao”) Dated 30.11.2012 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Only Issue Is Regarding The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Ao Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Direction. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Is A Foreign Company Incorporated At Milan, Italy & It Has A Project Office In India Which Is The Permanent Establishment (Pe). According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Has Been Awarded A Project By M/S. Indian Oil Corporation (Hereinafter “M/S. Iocl”) At Panipat Project. The Assessee In Turn Has Awarded The Same Project To Two (2) Of Its Associated Enterprises/Ae’S

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia/ Shri PranavFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92B

indicator in this case is selected (OP/OI) to find out the ALP of the payments made and the assessee itself was selected as the tested party for the purpose of his TP analysis. Thus, it was observed by TPO as under: - Particulars of Transactions Amount (Rs.) Operating Income

Ge Be Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 304/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.304/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Ge Be Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 3(1)(1), 60, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Bengaluru. Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacg 6714 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

types of inventory) 16. Making a working capital adjustment is an attempt to adjust for the differences in time value of money between the tested party and potential comparables, with an assumption that the difference should be reflected in profits. The underlying reasoning is that: ♦ A company will need funding ... factors have to be kept in mind (i) The point in time at which the Receivables, Inventory and Payables should be compared between the tested party and the comparables, whether it IT(TP)A No.304/Bang/2022 Page 17 of 18 should be the figures of receivables, inventory and payable

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2732/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2

Section 250Section 37(1)

lack of data, then in order to read the provisions of transfer pricing regulations in harmony, the adjustments should be made on the tested party. 18.10 The reliability and accuracy of adjustments would largely depend on availability of reliable and accurate data. For certain types of adjustments, relevant data ... reliably determinable based on information available in public domain, whereas, it may be possible to make equally reliable and accurate adjustments on the tested party (whose data would generally be easily accessible). In such a scenario, one has to resort to the provisions of Rule 10B(3)(ii) which provides

M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2611/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2

Section 250Section 37(1)

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

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

ITA 242/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.242/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Continuserve Softech India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Prathik Tech Park, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Bengaluru. Sy. No.93/1, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Hosur Road, Electronic City Phase 1, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaacc 8342 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

types of inventory) 16. Making a working capital adjustment is an attempt to adjust for the differences in time value of money between the tested party and potential comparables, with an assumption that the difference should be reflected in profits. The underlying reasoning is that: ♦ A company will need funding ... factors have to be kept in mind (i) The point in time at which the Receivables, Inventory and Payables should be compared between the tested party and the comparables, whether it should be the figures of receivables, inventory and payable at the year end or beginning of the year

Royal Canin India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre/Asst CIT-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1298/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 1298/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Royal Canin India Private Limited, 1401&1402 F Wing, 14Th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Cts Nos. 185/A, Graham Firth Compund Western Highway, Goregaon(E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan: Aadcr-4417-J ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax -3(1)(1) Room No.607, 6Th Floor,, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Khirendra M. Gupta With Shri Akhil Goel. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta with Shri Akhil GoelFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 271G

Moreover, the assessee to benchmark the transaction has selected comparables which are unrelated to assessee’s business. The assessee has selected foreign AE as tested party and if did not furnish financials of the said AE. 6. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee rebutting the arguments made on behalf ... Department submitted, that for the purpose of CUP no tested party is required. It is only for adopting TNMM as the most appropriate method that tested party is required. The TPO has passed identical orders for all the assessment years, therefore, the order passed by the TPO are in mechanical

Mega Soft Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 733/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.733/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Mega Soft Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner – No.85, Kutchery Road, Of Income Tax, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aabcm 8933 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.M.Muraleedhara Reddy,Ca & Mr.Nagaprasad, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Dr.S.Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Respondent: Dr.S.Palani Kumar, CIT

Section 144(5)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

with its AEs. The assessee has selected CUP as most appropriate method and bench marked transactions with its AE and claimed to be a tested party. During the course of assessment proceedings, the TPO rejected the CUP method adopted by the assessee and has adopted TNMM as most appropriate method