“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

Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2206/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 40A(2)

direct than the Transactional Net Margin Method. ii. He also rejected the contention of the assessee with internal CUP, using the Mauritius as the tested party to arrive at arms length price. iii. He followed his own decision for A.Y. 2004-05 in case of assessee where for the trade

M/S. Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 606/BANG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., No. 138, Export It(Tp)A No. Promotion Industrial 2008-09 606/Bang/2021 Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P The Joint M/S. Sap Labs India Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, (Successor To M/S. Special Range – 6, Success Factors Bangalore. Business Solutions It(Tp)A No. India Pvt. Ltd.), 2015-16 2510/Bang/2019 No. 138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA

Section 3(1)(b)

year ending filter applied by the TPO is necessary to exclude companies which do not have the same or comparable financial cycle as the tested party. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that foreign exchange loss/gain is operating

On Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

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

M/S. Success Factors Business Solutions India Private Limited (Now Merged With Sap Labs India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 2510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA

Section 3(1)(b)

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2595/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

contemporaneous transfer pricing study in the manner prescribed under section 92C of the Act. It had treated the assessee company as the tested party and it used the TNMM method as the most appropriate method to determine the arm's length nature of its transactions. At no stage ... public domain at the time of its statutorily mandated transfer pricing study. 12. Even before the CIT(A), the change of the tested party from the assessee company to its AEs was made on the basis of additional submissions made by the assessee itself before

ACIT Cir 1, Thane vs. Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane

ITA 2788/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM

Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Thane

ITA 2628/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

India Medtronic Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10 (1)91), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.54 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7935/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7935/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) India Medtronic Private Limited, 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Bldg.No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan:Aaaci-4227-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room No.209, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A With Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Kamath, Cit-Dr With S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A with Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamath, CIT-DR with S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani

Section 143(3)

worked out the adjustment resulting from the different levels of working capital i.e accounts receivable, inventory and accounts payable between the assessee i.e the tested party and the comparable companies. Also, the assessee had in the course of the proceedings before the lower authorities submitted that as working capital yields

The Boston Consulting Group (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1870/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 234DSection 274

licence fee to BCG Holding Corporation, USA. The assessee has adopted CUP method to benchmark this transaction by taking AE as tested party. The prices of similar software module licensed by Oracle Corporation was used as comparable uncontrolled price (CUP). It was alleged that the annual 4 ITA 1870/Mum/2014 charge

Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1777/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 10ASection 250

this regard, the Pune Tribunal in case of E-gain Communications has held that dos cognizance should be made to the turnovers of the tested party and the comparables, In case of Aginity India Technologies Private Limited 20:0] (ITA. No. 3856/2010) it was observed that where there

Dy.CIT-8(3), Mumbai vs. Sitel India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1426/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 10ASection 250

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

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

ITA 250/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.250/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 & Sa No.22/Bang/2022 M/S.Sprinklr India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, East Wing Building Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(2) V. Bengaluru. No.3, Block B, Divyashree 770 Town Centre, Off Hal Airport Road, Yamlur P.O. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan : Aaqcs9370N. (Appellant/Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2022 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 18.02.2022. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Sprinklr Us. It Provides Software Development Services To Its Parent Company. For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 31.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.24,99,66,540. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued. During The 2 It(Tp)A No.250/Bang/2022 & Sa 22/B/2022. M/S.Sprinklr India Private Limited. Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide His Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act Dated 27.01.2021 Determined The Tp Adjustment Of Rs.12,63,71,153. The Details Of The Tp Adjustment Made By The Tpo Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 92C

excluded from comparable list on account of turnover filter. The details of the said case are as follows:- Sl. Citation Turnover of the No. tested party (Rs.) 1. Autodesk India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 263 (Bang-Trib.) 2. Tavant Technologies India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

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

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

ITA 206/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 206/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Epson India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 12Th Floor, The Milenia, Commissioner Of Tower A, Income Tax, No. 1,Murphy Road, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ulsoor, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 008. Pan: Aaace7858F Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Orders Passed By Learned Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income- Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred As "Ao" For Brevity), Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tp) — 1(2)(1), Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred As "Tpo" For Brevity) & The Honourable Drp-1

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha

consonance with Rule 10B(1)(e), which mandates only arriving at the net profit margin by comparing the profits and loss account of the tested party with the comparable. The TNM Method proceeds on the assumption that functions, assets and risk being broadly similar and once suitable adjustments have been ... 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

M/S Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 107/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

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

computing its margin at 15.63%. The Ld.TPO noted that assessee treated foreign exchange fluctuation as operating in nature for computing the PLI of tested party of the comparables. The assessee used 4 comparables for SWD service segment. Applying TNMM as the most appropriate method, computed the arms length margin

M/S. Yahoo Software Development India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 178/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 178/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Yahoo Software Development India Pvt. Ltd., Torrey Pines, The Joint Embassy Golf Links Commissioner Of Business Park, Income-Tax, Off Indira Nagar – Special Range – 7, Koramangala Vs. Bengaluru. Intermediate Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan: Aaacy1876D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Amulaya, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25/01/2022 Passed By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Amulaya, Advocate

Section 92A(2)(a)

guidelines are very clear and advocates adopting the rates of interest applicable to commercial enterprise operating in the same market as that of a tested party. 8. We are therefore of the opinion that the revenue was not justified in denying the working capital adjustment in order to bring

Altico Capital India Private Limited ( Formerly Clearwater Capital Partners (I) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 424/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 250

Method (“TNMM”) as the most appropriate method with Profit Level Indicator (“PLI”) of Operating Profit to Operating Cost (“OP/OC”). By considering itself as the tested party, assessee identified 7 comparable companies with three-year average weighted margin of 12.59%. As the assessee computed its own PLI at 20%, accordingly

Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)- 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Clearwater Capital Partners India Private Limited (Now Known As Altico Capital India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 11/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. 24/7 Customer Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 228/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 228/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. 24/7 Customer Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Embassy Golflinks Business Commissioner Of Park, Income Tax, Challaghatta Village, Circle – 2 (1)(1), Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore. Vs. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaacz1014A Appellant Respondent : Shri Jeepan Nagpal & Mrs. Assessee By Pallavi Sharma, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2005- 06 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Grounds Of Appeal & Question Of Law: A) The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Fact Seeking Exact Comparability Under Tnnm?

For Respondent: Shri Jeepan Nagpal & Mrs

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

rates of depreciation is different vis-a-vis the comparable companies. Further as regards whether adjustment should be made in the hands of the tested party i.e., the assessee or the comparable companies, the Mumbai Tribunal decision in the case of Pangea3 & Legal Database Systems ... where rates of depreciation were different in case of assessee and comparable companies, Rule 10B(1) permits an adjustment in the hands of the tested party also and depreciation adjustment has to be allowed.” Respectfully following the above view, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken

M/S Harman International (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 49/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.49/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation India Private Limited, Income Tax, 4A, Jupiter, Prestige Technology Park, Circle - 3(1)(2), Sarjapur, Marathahalli Road, Bengaluru. Kadubeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aacch 1585 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

49/Bang/2019 Page 14 of 31 adjustment ought to be provided for any differences in the economic factors between the tested party and the comparables. A working capital adjustment is one such adjustment which is to be applied in order to adjust for the differences between the working capital positions ... tested party and of the comparable. The learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Brocade Communications Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Order dated 19.02.2020 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in IT(TP)A No. 79/Bang/2019), wherein working