← All Phrases

“benchmarking analysis”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C560 judgments

The decision most relied on for benchmarking analysis is DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. (38 SOT 307), cited in 179 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on benchmarking analysis

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.

Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
114 ITD 448 · 2008 · ITAT
131
citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, functionally dissimilar entities that have significant business differences must be excluded from the list of comparables for benchmarking analysis. It also provides guidance on the non-allocation of advertisement, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses to other entities when incurred solely for the assessee's business.

CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 730 · 2014 · High Court
120
citing judgments

This case determines the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for intra-group services and reimbursements, clarifying when charges constitute services warranting a mark-up versus mere pass-through costs. It provides guidance on the circumstances under which an ALP adjustment, including an ALP of 'nil', is appropriate for such transactions.

Aztec Software & Technologies Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
107 ITD 141 · 2007 · ITAT
90
citing judgments

OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines can be referred to for resolving transfer pricing disputes in India, even though India is not an OECD member, provided they are consistent with Indian statutory regulations. Availability of exemption under Section 10A does not bar the applicability of Section 92C and 92CA.

UCB India (P) Limited v. ACIT
121 ITD 131 · 2009 · ITAT
70
citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, distinct international transactions, such as royalty payments and manufacturing, should be benchmarked separately rather than aggregated. The selection of comparables must be based on a thorough Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR) analysis, and loss-making entities are not automatically excluded if they satisfy other comparability criteria.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. ACIT
68 Taxmann.com 322 · 2016 · High Court
55
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.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merck Ltd.
389 ITR 70 · 2016 · High Court
48
citing judgments

Ad-hoc transfer pricing adjustments are not justified if the Transfer Pricing Officer fails to apply one of the prescribed methods under Section 92C. The arm's length nature of international transactions, including intra-group services and management fees, should be determined through a detailed FAR analysis and benchmarking study.

Dresser-Rand India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
13 Taxmann.com 82 · 2011 · High Court
43
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot disregard an assessee's decision to avail services from associated enterprises, even if the assessee has internal expertise, as the determination of necessity is the assessee's prerogative. The Transfer Pricing Officer's role is to determine the arm's length price, not the need for the service itself.

Judgments citing benchmarking analysis

Humboldt Wedag India Private Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle - 10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4726/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhumboldt Wedag India Private Ltd., Vs. Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asstt. A – 36, Mehtab House, Commission Of Income-Tax, Mohan Co-Op. Estate, Mathura Road, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi – 110 044. Circle 10(1), Delhi. (Pan : Aaach7474G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajineesh Verma, Ca Ms. Hem Lata Verma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dharam Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Order : 21.05.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 05.09.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) Subsequent To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp)/Tpo Vide Order Dated 07.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Pertaining To Transfer Pricing Matters: Adjustment Rs.10,486,841 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Ld. Drp'), The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Appellant: Shri Rajineesh Verma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 234ASection 270ASection 92CSection 92C(2)

would agree to provide such services without keeping an arm's length profit element over and above cost of services. 4.2 Disregarding the comprehensive benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant, without demonstrating the inadequacy or infirmity in the analysis so conducted by the Appellant. 3 4.3 Disregarding the corroborative internal