“benchmarking analysis”

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

length. The TPO vide order dated 20/10/2009 passed under section 92CA (3) of the Act did not agree with the benchmarking analysis conducted by the assessee and following the approach adopted in the assessment year 2005–06 considered internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price („CUP‟) method as the most appropriate method since

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

length. The TPO vide order dated 20/10/2009 passed under section 92CA (3) of the Act did not agree with the benchmarking analysis conducted by the assessee and following the approach adopted in the assessment year 2005–06 considered internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price („CUP‟) method as the most appropriate method since

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and ground of the Revenue is dismissed

length. The TPO vide order dated 20/10/2009 passed under section 92CA (3) of the Act did not agree with the benchmarking analysis conducted by the assessee and following the approach adopted in the assessment year 2005–06 considered internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price („CUP‟) method as the most appropriate method since

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

DCIT in adopting adhoc and arbitrary approach to determine the mark up to be imputed on the recovery of expenses without undertaking any benchmarking analysis. ITA Nos. 467 & 480/M/2020 3 M/s. Wartsila India Pvt. Ltd. 6. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances ... DCIT in adopting adhoc and arbitrary approach to determine the mark up to be imputed on the recovery of expenses without undertaking any benchmarking analysis. 6. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable CIT(A) erred

Wartsila India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

DCIT in adopting adhoc and arbitrary approach to determine the mark up to be imputed on the recovery of expenses without undertaking any benchmarking analysis. ITA Nos. 467 & 480/M/2020 3 M/s. Wartsila India Pvt. Ltd. 6. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances ... DCIT in adopting adhoc and arbitrary approach to determine the mark up to be imputed on the recovery of expenses without undertaking any benchmarking analysis. 6. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable CIT(A) erred

Lintas India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP have erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant using Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), as the most appropriate method and computing the transfer pricing addition without undertaking any comparable ... case and in law, the learned TPO and the learned AO under the directions of Hon'ble DRP, erred in rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant considered overseas AEs as the tested party, even though the said approach is within the provisions

DCIT -5(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 3.1 & 3.2 raised by the Assessee are dismissed

position that providing guarantees to its AEs does not constitute an international transaction. However, without prejudice to the aforesaid, the Assessee carried out benchmarking analysis. The TPO noted that as per TPSR the Assessee had provided following performance/corporate guarantees to third parties on behalf of its AEs. 7.2. Performance Guarantee ... taken a position that providing guarantees to its AEs does not constitute an international transaction, and without prejudice to the aforesaid, carried out benchmarking analysis. The TPO noted that as per TPSR the Appellant had provided thirteen corporate guarantees to third parties on behalf of its AEs. After undertaking analysis

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. India Debt Management Private Limited, Mumbai

against the Assessment Order dated 26/04/2016. Before the CIT(A) it was contended on behalf of the Assessee that the TPO had incorrectly rejected benchmarking analysis of the Assessee by stating that the revision in the interest rate was without carrying out any benchmarking analysis. The aforesaid contention, found favour ... with the CIT(A) was pleased to hold that the TPO should not have disregarded the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Assessee. The CIT(A), by placing reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2010-11 proceeded to delete

Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

premise that the international transactions entered by the Appellant with its associated enterprises (AEs) were not at arm's length: Rejection of benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant 4. erred in upholding the learned TPO's action of rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant for the provision ... length price of the international transaction of availing consulting services from its AE amounting to Rs.99,27,601 to be Nil by rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant using the CUP method; Payment made towards cost allocations on account of intra-group services received 12. erred and upholding

Deutsche Investor Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2), Mumbai

learned TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the TPO of disregarding the benchmarking analysis and comparable companies selected by the Appellant (which were engaged in providing system integration, software testing and IT Infrastructure Management etc.) based on the contemporaneous data ... learned TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the TPO of disregarding the benchmarking analysis and comparable companies selected by the Appellant (which were engaged in providing system integration, software testing and IT Infrastructure Management etc.) based on the contemporaneous data

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -6(1)(2), Mumbai-400020 vs. M/S. Bristol Myers Squibb India P Ltd., Mumbai-400018

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

other functions carried out by the assessee having no nexus with the said import transactions were thus not relevant for the said benchmarking analysis. Be that as it may, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the TPO/DRP that merely for the reason that complete information about ... Daga Global Chemicals Ltd. alike the assessee was engaged in the business of distribution, therefore, it was rightly selected as a comparable for benchmarking analysis. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions advanced by the Id. A.R and find substantial force in the same. In our considered

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

remand this issue to the file of TPO for de novo benchmarking of the international transaction pertaining to corporate guarantee after considering the benchmarking analysis as done by the assessee in its TP Study Report. As a result, ground No. 1 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical ... points and LIBOR +163.8 basis points as the arm‟s length interest rate. The TPO rejected M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. ITA no.2116/Mum./2017 the benchmarking analysis of the taxpayer by considering interest at the LIBOR rate and instead applied the rates based on the Bloomberg database on the basis that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S M.Pallonji Shipping Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly uphold the decision of the CIT(A) on this issue. The cross objections filed by the assessee in this regard is dismissed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

notional interest charged on the advances given by the assessee to its AE. The TPO by computing the notional interest has done a benchmarking analysis using the data from Bloomberg. The working done by the TPO while calculating interest is as given below:- Loan Date Amount Balance Interest Rate Days

Technimont Spa India Project Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2152/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) M/S. Tecnimont Spa India बिधम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Office Income Tax- 4(1)(2) Vs. Tecnimont Icb House, Room No. 1712 17Th Chincholi Bunder, 504 Link Floor, Air India Building Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400064. 400021 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact8224A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. M.P. Lohia A/W Pranay Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ao Dated Nil 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 Dated 23.12.2016. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee/Tipo Is A Project Office/Pe Of M/S. Tecnimont Spa (Tcm), A Foreign Company Incorporated At Milan, Italy Which Is Engaged In Engineering & Construction World-Wide In Section Of Chemical, Petro-Chemical Oil & Gas, Energy Etc; According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee/Tipo Has Been Awarded Inter-Alia Turnkey Project By M/S. Indian Oil Corporation (Hereinafter “M/S. Iocl”) At Panipat Project. & The Assessee/Tipo

Technimont SPA India project. As noted (supra) according to the TPO, TNMM was the most suitable method for conducting benchmarking analysis of the transactions of the assessee at an entity level, as all the business activities of the assessee are integrally linked and channelized for the purpose of the execution

Omni Active Health Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asst/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

treated as being on arm’s length basis. Further, on a corroborative basis, based upon earlier years the Appellant had also carried out benchmarking analysis considering external TNMM as the most appropriate method. The margin of comparables as selected in transfer pricing study report of the Appellant for external TNMM ... currency of transaction, commission and sales promotion incurred. For the Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011- 12, the Assessing Officer/TPO had accepted internal TNMM benchmarking analysis conducted by the Appellant while for the Assessment Year 2017-18, the TPO has not provided any reasoning for rejection of TNMM

Asb International P.Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 1, Kalyan

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

made adjustment of entire royalty payment of Rs.13,91,42,366/-. 8. Before the ld. DRP, assessee contented that benchmarking analysis should be done under Rule 10AB, i.e. „Other method’. Justifying the applicability of „other method‟, Assessee has given very detailed reasons which have been discussed in detail ... comparable uncontrolled transaction and therefore, CUP is not applicable and under these circumstances only „other method‟ can be applied. The assessee has provided the benchmarking analysis „other method‟ which was rejected by the ld. DRP after observing as under:- “As per the assessee, in its Non-AE segment the profits

Macrotech Developers Ltd.(Successor to Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

guarantee commission at 0.50% as directed by DRP. 1.4. without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in disregarding the detailed benchmarking analysis based on interest savings approach conducted by the appellant without providing any cogent reason for doing 1.5. Each one of our previously mentioned grounds of appeal

Macrotech Developrs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

guarantee commission at 0.50% as directed by DRP. 1.4. without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO/TPO erred in disregarding the detailed benchmarking analysis based on interest savings approach conducted by the appellant without providing any cogent reason for doing 1.5. Each one of our previously mentioned grounds of appeal