← All Phrases

“economic adjustment”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C88 judgments

The decision most relied on for economic adjustment is CIT v. Petro Araldite (P.) Ltd. (256 Taxmann 16), cited in 15 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on economic adjustment

CIT v. Petro Araldite (P.) Ltd.
256 Taxmann 16 · 2018 · High Court
15
citing judgments

Economic adjustments relating to capacity utilization and foreign exchange should be granted to the assessee when computing its margin under the TNMM.

Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
77 Taxmann.com 48 · 2017 · Reported
10
citing judgments

This case does not lay down a clear proposition of law based on the provided excerpts. The passages focus on listing other cases and describing the business of a company rather than stating a legal holding.

Judgments citing economic adjustment

Jcb India Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle - 13(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal for assessment year 2009-10, 2013-14 in respect of transaction with non-AE is set aside to Id

ITA 512/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C

search criteria applied by the TPΟ, 5.5 in computing the ad hoc transfer price of the royalty rate at 2 percent post certain economic adjustments based on surmises and conjectures de hors the fact that in the comparable agreement selected by TPO, the royalty rate

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 9482/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu S. Sinha & Bhuwan Dhoopar, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) & Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

reflected in the higher levels of operating expenditure vis-a-vis the companies that are taken to be comparable under TNMM, and hence requires economic adjustment. This adjustment has been carried out by increasing the profit margins of the comparables in all the three segments - Trading, Manufacturing and Networking. This

Benetton India P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 496/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 496/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Benetton India Pvt. Ltd., Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Plot No. 25B, Block Infocity Vs. Tax, Circle : 4 (2), Sector : 34, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana.Pan:Aaacd1013F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, Sh. Ankul Goel & Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advs Department By: Shri Mahesh Shah, [Cit] D.R. & Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, ShFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)

spend; d. incorrectly computing the net operating margin of the Appellant as well as of the comparable companies by not granting the benefit of economic adjustments as required under Rule 10B(2) as well as Rule 10B(l)(e) of the Rules; e. not appreciating that the losses ... authorities have incorrectly computed the net operating margin of the assessee as well as of the comparable companies by not granting benefit of economic adjustment as required under Rule 10B (2) and Rule 10B(1)(e) of the Rules. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Benetton India P.Ltd, Gurgaon

ITA 7389/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 496/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Benetton India Pvt. Ltd., Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Plot No. 25B, Block Infocity Vs. Tax, Circle : 4 (2), Sector : 34, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana.Pan:Aaacd1013F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, Sh. Ankul Goel & Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advs Department By: Shri Mahesh Shah, [Cit] D.R. & Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, ShFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)

spend; d. incorrectly computing the net operating margin of the Appellant as well as of the comparable companies by not granting the benefit of economic adjustments as required under Rule 10B(2) as well as Rule 10B(l)(e) of the Rules; e. not appreciating that the losses ... authorities have incorrectly computed the net operating margin of the assessee as well as of the comparable companies by not granting benefit of economic adjustment as required under Rule 10B (2) and Rule 10B(1)(e) of the Rules. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that

Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 469/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

hold the Apotex group as deemed AE and the ground of appeal is dismissed. 10. Ground No. 7 is against not allowing economic adjustments while computing operating margins under TNMM method . 10.1 The Ld AR submitted that the Ld. TPO has not considered adjustment of amortization of goodwill while computing

Caterpillar India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2749/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2749/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. Dcit 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.22/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.2749/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai-34. Taramani Road, Taramani, Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

rejecting some of the entities as selected by the assessee and by introducing certain new comparable entities. The Ld. TPO also denied certain economic adjustment viz. risk adjustment, working capital adjustments as claimed by the assessee. The forex gains / losses were treated as operating in nature

Daeseung Autoparts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT (OSD), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 752/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.752/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Daeseung Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Osd) Plot No,474, Mannur Village, Corporate Range-1, बनाम/ Vs. Valarpuram Post, Sriperumpudhur Taluk Chennai. Kanchipuram- 602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccd-5629-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Suresh (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 92C

appropriate profit level indicator as against the cash profit on operating revenue adopted by the Appellant in determination of arm's length price. Economic adjustments 8. The Learned TPO/AO and the DRP erred in law and in facts, in not appreciating the business/ economic circumstances faced by the Appellant ... consequently not allowing the economic adjustment relating to excess custom duty incurred by the Appellant. 9. The Learned TPO/ AO and the DRP erred in law and in facts, by not making suitable adjustments to account for differences in the working capital position of the Appellant

Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solution Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 739/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountαντ Μεμβer

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Anil Sant

comparability analysis. Ground No. 6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AD/DRP has erred in not allowing the economic adjustment on account of difference in level of working capital of the Appellant and that of the comparables companies while determining the arm's length ... price of international transactions of sale of project and services. Prayer The Appellant prays that the economic adjustment for the difference in working capital should be allowed Ground No. 7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO/DRP have erred in not allowing the economic

Nikon India Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1628/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)Section 154Section 92BSection 92C

expenditure. 12. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP / TPO have erred in not granting quantitative / economic adjustments (such as non-payment of royalty / expenses incurred on new product launches) while quantifying arm's length price of the alleged international transaction

Supermax Personal Care P. Ltd., Thane vs. Dy CIT -3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in above terms

ITA 687/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Gupta & Shri AjinkyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. DR
Section 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 92C

lacs as non-operating, which comprises of insurance claim of INR 1 lacs and other miscellaneous income of INR 338 lacs. Economic Adjustment 9. without prejudice to the above, appropriate economic adjustment should be granted to the Appellant for differences such as working capital employed by the Assessee

Schott Glass India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

ITA 7356/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mahesh Jiwade
Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

hence is bad in law. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering and understanding the rationale behind the economic adjustments carried out by the appellant for the purpose of benchmarking with respect to manufacturing segment. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed ... Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact there was underutilization of capacity in Tank 3 during FY 2006-07 and hence economic adjustments were necessary to eliminate the differences in the economic circumstances of comparable and the Appellant Company. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Circle 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

ITA 2594/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mahesh Jiwade
Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

hence is bad in law. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering and understanding the rationale behind the economic adjustments carried out by the appellant for the purpose of benchmarking with respect to manufacturing segment. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed ... Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact there was underutilization of capacity in Tank 3 during FY 2006-07 and hence economic adjustments were necessary to eliminate the differences in the economic circumstances of comparable and the Appellant Company. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ACIT (OSD) Corporate Range 1, Chennai vs. Dong A India Automotive Private Limited, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee’s in ITA No

ITA 1365/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 585/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ls Automotive India Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Daesung V. Income Tax (Osd), Electric India Pvt Ltd) Corporate Range 1, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, No. 118, Padur Village, Thiruvelangadu Post, Wanaparthy Block, Kunnavalam V.O. No. 121, Aayakarbhavan, Thiruvallur – 631 210. Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aakcs-1901-R] Nungamabakkam, Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2159/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Komos Automotive India Pvt Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, B-10/1, Sipcot Industrial Corporate Circle 4(2), 4Th Floor, Main Building, Development Centre, Oragadam, Vaippur-A Vilalge, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Sriperumbudurtaluk, Road, Nungamabakkam, Kanchipuramdist – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacck-8859-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 40/Chny/2019 &

Section 115JSection 40

gains. The TPO/CIT(A) further observed that, when TNMM is used as most appropriate method, then item by item expenditure exclusion by way of economic adjustment will render the comparable method as irrelevant. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri. Raghunathan Sampath, Advocate and Shri. S. Sankara Narayanan, Advocate

Dong-A India Automotive Pvt Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee’s in ITA No

ITA 360/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 585/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ls Automotive India Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Daesung V. Income Tax (Osd), Electric India Pvt Ltd) Corporate Range 1, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, No. 118, Padur Village, Thiruvelangadu Post, Wanaparthy Block, Kunnavalam V.O. No. 121, Aayakarbhavan, Thiruvallur – 631 210. Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aakcs-1901-R] Nungamabakkam, Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2159/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Komos Automotive India Pvt Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, B-10/1, Sipcot Industrial Corporate Circle 4(2), 4Th Floor, Main Building, Development Centre, Oragadam, Vaippur-A Vilalge, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Sriperumbudurtaluk, Road, Nungamabakkam, Kanchipuramdist – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacck-8859-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 40/Chny/2019 &

Section 115JSection 40

gains. The TPO/CIT(A) further observed that, when TNMM is used as most appropriate method, then item by item expenditure exclusion by way of economic adjustment will render the comparable method as irrelevant. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri. Raghunathan Sampath, Advocate and Shri. S. Sankara Narayanan, Advocate

Daesung Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvallur vs. ACIT (OSD), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee’s in ITA No

ITA 585/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 585/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ls Automotive India Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Daesung V. Income Tax (Osd), Electric India Pvt Ltd) Corporate Range 1, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, No. 118, Padur Village, Thiruvelangadu Post, Wanaparthy Block, Kunnavalam V.O. No. 121, Aayakarbhavan, Thiruvallur – 631 210. Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aakcs-1901-R] Nungamabakkam, Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2159/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Komos Automotive India Pvt Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, B-10/1, Sipcot Industrial Corporate Circle 4(2), 4Th Floor, Main Building, Development Centre, Oragadam, Vaippur-A Vilalge, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Sriperumbudurtaluk, Road, Nungamabakkam, Kanchipuramdist – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacck-8859-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 40/Chny/2019 &

Section 115JSection 40

gains. The TPO/CIT(A) further observed that, when TNMM is used as most appropriate method, then item by item expenditure exclusion by way of economic adjustment will render the comparable method as irrelevant. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri. Raghunathan Sampath, Advocate and Shri. S. Sankara Narayanan, Advocate

Komos Automotive India Pvt Ltd, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle4(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee’s in ITA No

ITA 2159/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 585/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ls Automotive India Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Daesung V. Income Tax (Osd), Electric India Pvt Ltd) Corporate Range 1, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, No. 118, Padur Village, Thiruvelangadu Post, Wanaparthy Block, Kunnavalam V.O. No. 121, Aayakarbhavan, Thiruvallur – 631 210. Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aakcs-1901-R] Nungamabakkam, Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2159/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Komos Automotive India Pvt Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, B-10/1, Sipcot Industrial Corporate Circle 4(2), 4Th Floor, Main Building, Development Centre, Oragadam, Vaippur-A Vilalge, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Sriperumbudurtaluk, Road, Nungamabakkam, Kanchipuramdist – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacck-8859-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 40/Chny/2019 &

Section 115JSection 40

gains. The TPO/CIT(A) further observed that, when TNMM is used as most appropriate method, then item by item expenditure exclusion by way of economic adjustment will render the comparable method as irrelevant. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri. Raghunathan Sampath, Advocate and Shri. S. Sankara Narayanan, Advocate

Tpg Software Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6468/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C(3)(c)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP / TPO erred in not providing the benefit of economic adjustment on account of difference in risk profile in arriving at the arm's length mean margin. 3.5 That on the facts and circumstances

Dassault Systems India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT, Special Range- 3, New Delhi

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

ITA 8469/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 92D

AO/TPO erred in comparing the operating margins of comparable companies with the Appellant's operating margin, without providing any economic adjustments, viz. on account of working capital adjustment and on account of difference in risk profile of the Appellant, as required under Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) of the Income

Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-16(*2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6944/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 6944/Del/2019 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 2Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(4)Section 92D

international transactions in accordance with the provisions of section 92C(1) and section 92C(2) of the Act and arbitrarily disregarding the economic adjustment envisaged under Rule 10B(e)(iii). 3.3. Disregarding the arm's length price as determined by the Appellant in the TP documentation in terms of section ... comparability adjustments, thus putting endues emphasis on earlier years where there was no claim of comparability adjustments. 4.5. Ignoring the applicability of necessary economic adjustments (like working capital adjustment, capacity utilization adjustment and other economic adjustment but other than price penetration adjustment) in the computation of the arm's length

Belden India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 424/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Belden India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Unit No. 233-236, 2Nd Floor, Spaze Circle-1(1), Edge, Tower-B, Sohna Road, Sector- Gurgaon 47, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb9624Q Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

submissions made by the Appellant with respect to non-comparability of companies additionally identified by the Learned TPO. 6.7 Not providing for suitable economic adjustments to account for differences in working capital employed and the corresponding risk profile of the Appellant vis- à-vis comparable companies while computing the adjustment