← All Phrases

“multiple year data”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C149 judgments

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. BP INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4907/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), P B No 19411, Mumbai Vs. Technopolis Knowledge Park, Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 276/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income P B No 19411, Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mumbai Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan & Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Cas Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit (A) 55, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1076574916(1), Dated 30/05/2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit - 9(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(3)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.04.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan and Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

adjustment to account for the differences in the risk profile between the assessee and the comparable companies. 1.8. not allowing the use of multiple year data of comparable companies, as prescribed under Rule 10B(4) of the Rules and determining the arm's length price on the basis of financial ... those of the assessee. The said analysis undertaken by the assessee determined a mean operating profit to total cost (OP/TC) of 12.74% using multiple year data. Effective OP/TC of the assessee was 9.09% after excluding pass-through cost, duly considered in the Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR) submitted before

ARIBA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2705/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

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

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP/ TPO erred in disregarding the multiple year data selected by the Appellant in the TP Documentation and in selecting the current year (i.e. financial year 2010-11) data for comparability despite the fact

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. BP INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are

ITA 4873/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.535, Aayakar Bhavan, Pb No. 19411, Technopolis Vs. Mumbai – 400020. Knowledge Park, Andheri, Mumbai- 400043. Pan No. – Aaccb2020Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 277/M/2025 In Ita No.4873/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah/ Mr. AmolFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR. D.R.)
Section 234DSection 271(1)(c)

adjustment to account for the differences in the risk profile between the Assessee and the comparable companies 1.8. not allowing the use of multiple year data of comparable companies, as prescribed under Rule 10B(4) of the Rules and determining the arm's length price on the basis of financial ... order of Ld. CIT (A). Before the Ld. CIT (A), the Assessee challenged the action of TPO in not allowing the use of multiple year data as prescribed under Rule 10B(4). The Assessee also challenged the rejection of economic analysis undertaken by Assessee and for inclusion of comparable

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2890/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

appellant. The TPO has given a detailed analysis regarding his inclusion/modification/rejection of various filters; use of current year data rather than multiple year data used by the appellant in the body of his impugned order hence the contention of the appellant is dismissed. ITA Nos. 2862 & 2863/Del/2018 5.41 The contention

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2889/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

appellant. The TPO has given a detailed analysis regarding his inclusion/modification/rejection of various filters; use of current year data rather than multiple year data used by the appellant in the body of his impugned order hence the contention of the appellant is dismissed. ITA Nos. 2862 & 2863/Del/2018 5.41 The contention

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2863/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

appellant. The TPO has given a detailed analysis regarding his inclusion/modification/rejection of various filters; use of current year data rather than multiple year data used by the appellant in the body of his impugned order hence the contention of the appellant is dismissed. ITA Nos. 2862 & 2863/Del/2018 5.41 The contention

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2862/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

appellant. The TPO has given a detailed analysis regarding his inclusion/modification/rejection of various filters; use of current year data rather than multiple year data used by the appellant in the body of his impugned order hence the contention of the appellant is dismissed. ITA Nos. 2862 & 2863/Del/2018 5.41 The contention

HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8260/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Huawei Telecommunications Vs. Dcit, (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), 7Th Floor, Tower-A, Spaze-1- Gurgaon Tech Park, Sohna Road, (Haryana) Gurgaon, Haryana Pin: 122 001 Aabch1376E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra and AnkurFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

have erred, in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, by: a. Not accepting the use of multiple year data, as adopted by the appellant in TP documentation; and b. Determining the arm's length margins / prices using data pertaining only to Financial Year ("FY") 2013-14 which ... international transaction incorrectly holding that the impugned transaction is not at arm’s length. Ld. TPO erred in not accepting the use of multiple year data adopted by the ae in T.P. documentation and determining arm’s length margin margin/using data only of financial year of 2013-14 which

NOVATEUR ELECTRICAL AND DIGITAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 944/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

comparables; r) erred in ignoring the provisions of Rule 10B(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which envisages usage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the arm's length price as defined under section 92F(ii) of the Act, s) erred

DY CIT 10(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S NOVATEUR ELECTRICALS AND DIGITAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 1189/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari and Shri Lekh Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(2)

comparables; r) erred in ignoring the provisions of Rule 10B(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which envisages usage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the arm's length price as defined under section 92F(ii) of the Act, s) erred

NIELSEN (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 6(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 3581/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3581/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Nielsen (India) V/S. Deputy Private Limited बिाम Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Income Tax Range– Acnielsen Org-Marg 6(1), Mumbai Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai 6Th Floor, Block C, Godrej It 400020 Park, 02, Godrej Business District, Lbs Marg, Phirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai 400079 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm9279L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Paras S. Savla राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Ms. Neena Jeph, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Paras S. SavlaFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 250Section 43B

have appreciated that the comparables proposed are not functionally comparable to the appellant. 1.13 The learned AO/ CIT(A) should have considered the multiple year data of the comparable. 1.14 The learned AO's/ CIT(A)'s approach of allocating cost based on revenue is not justified. 1.15 The learned

FEDEX EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4783/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

made in application of a method" have to be taken into consideration by the TPO, 35. As regards the relevance of multiple year data for transfer pricing determination, this Court is of the opinion that the general rule as prescribed in Rule 10B(4) mandates the tax authorities to take

HERE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 10 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the asessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5918/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrianikesh Banerjee () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92D

resorted to the use of single year data of the alleged comparable companies instead of multiple year data, as permissible under Rule 10B(4) of the Rules. 2:8 The AO/TPO/CIT (A) have erred in rejecting companies having different FY ending or whose data does not fall within ... resorted to the use of single year data of the alleged comparable companies instead of multiple year data, as permissible under Rule 10B(4) of the Rules. 3:8 The AO/TPO/CIT (A) have erred in rejecting companies having different FY ending or whose data does not fall within

OPEN TEXT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2387/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 92B

proceedings and thereby making an\nadjustment of Rs. 16,21,20,521 towards the international transactions\nwith AEs.\n2. Rejection of use of multiple year data :\nRejecting the use of multiple and using data for the FY 2013-14 only in\ndetermining the arm's length price

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (I) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

assessment proceedings and accordingly making a TP adjustment to the international transactions of providing software services to its AE; Rejection of use of multiple year data 2) Rejecting the use of multiple year data and using data for the FY 2012-13 only; Use of additional filters 3) Inter-alia ... assessment proceedings and thereby making an adjustment of Rs.7,64,51,732 towards the international transactions with AEs. 2. Rejection of use of multiple year data: Rejecting the use of multiple year data and using data for the FY 2013-14 only in determining the arm's length price

OAKTON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

assessment proceedings and accordingly making a TP adjustment to the international transactions of providing software services to its AE; Rejection of use of multiple year data 2) Rejecting the use of multiple year data and using data for the FY 2012-13 only; Use of additional filters 3) Inter-alia ... assessment proceedings and thereby making an adjustment of Rs.7,64,51,732 towards the international transactions with AEs. 2. Rejection of use of multiple year data: Rejecting the use of multiple year data and using data for the FY 2013-14 only in determining the arm's length price

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1076/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Schneider Electric India Vs Acit Pvt.Ltd., 9Th Floor, Tower C Circle-22(2) Building No.10, Dlf Cyber Room No. 226 City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon C.R. Building Hartyana-122002 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aabcs1642G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. & Tanya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

thereby resulting in excessive loss allocated in Manufacturing Local segment and excessive profit allocated in Manufacturing TP segment. b. Rejected the use of multiple year data and proceed to consider current year data for the purpose of computing arm's length price. c. Distorted the comparable set using inconsistent selection

CVENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in both the A

ITA 187/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: ShriDheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92D

operational risks while rendering services to its overseas affiliates 8. The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/ Ld. CIT-(A) erred in disregarding the multiple year data selected by the Assessee in the TP Documentation and in selecting the current year (i.e. financial year 2009-10) data for comparability despite the fact

RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 11.1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 2319/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DRP/ TPO\nhave erred in rejecting the use of multiple year data for analysis and\ndetermining the arm's length margin.\n\n6(a) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... parables.\n6(e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DRP/TPO\nhave erred in rejecting the use of multiple year data for analysis and\ndetermining the arm's length margin.\n\n7(a) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1801/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DRP/ TPO have erred in rejecting the use of multiple year data for analysis and determining the arm's length margin. 6(a) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP erred ... Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DRP/ TPO have erred in rejecting the use of multiple year data for analysis and determining the arm's length margin. 7(a) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ AO erred

Showing 1–20 of 149 · Page 1 of 8

...