← All Phrases

“multiple year data”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C149 judgments

The decision most relied on for multiple year data is Electronic for Imaging (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (85 Taxmann.com 124), cited in 38 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on multiple year data

Electronic for Imaging (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
85 Taxmann.com 124 · 2017 · ITAT
38
citing judgments

Comparability of a company for transfer pricing purposes must be decided afresh by the TPO after considering the facts recorded in prior tribunal decisions. The tribunal may direct exclusion of comparable companies based on such prior decisions.

Orange Business Services India Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
91 Taxmann.com 286 · 2018 · High Court
26
citing judgments

A company is considered a comparable in transfer pricing analysis unless it is shown to be functionally incomparable.

DCIT v. Rehau Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
85 Taxmann.com 23 · 2017 · Reported
17
citing judgments

The case is cited for principles related to transfer pricing, likely concerning the benchmarking analysis of related party transactions, as indicated by the accompanying topics and keywords.

Judgments citing multiple year data

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2631/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 78/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

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

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

ITA 2681/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)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 ... parables. 6(e) 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

Here Solutions India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 10 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5919/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 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/ TΡΟ / 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/ TΡΟ / CIT (A) have erred in rejecting companies having different FY ending or whose data does not fall within

Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 172/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.172/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aabca7366H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/02/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri B.G. Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. M Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 92C

Rule 10CA(4), when the data set consisted of 6 or more comparable items, it is mandatory to apply the range concept and multiple year data to arrive at ALP range between 35 and 65 percentiles under CPM whereas the TPO has accepted the CPM as the most Page

Decathlon Sports India Private Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Bengaluru, Karnataka

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 1874/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 92C

clothing, footwear, leather goods, etc.’. The ownership criteria were also applied and ownership above 50% was excluded. The search was conducted by taking multiple year data, fiscal year alignment adopting Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of Operating Income/Total Cost of the assessee and compared it with the weighted average

Iljin Automotive Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1834/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1834/Chny/2017 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Iljin Automotive Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.B1 & B2, Sipcot Industrial Park Corporate Circle-2(2), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Chennai. Vs. Kanchipuram-602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-2641-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32Section 43ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

Section 92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2.2 Erred in law and on facts in rejecting the usage of multiple year data for comparability analysis. 2.3 Erred in law and on facts by rejecting comparable companies selected by the Appellant in the transfer pricing documentation. Further ... have gone through the ground-wise chart as placed by Ld. AR on record. The Ld. AR has assailed rejection of usage of multiple years’ data. The same stand rejected at the outset since comparability has to be done on contemporaneous data as per extant rules. The Ld. AR seeks

Imsofer Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7923/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Reuben Mathew Jacob, Sr. DR
Section 92C(2)Section 92D

reduce the difference while comparing the Appellant, being in its initial phase of operations, with already established companies. 2.7 rejecting the use of multiple year data i.e. contemporaneous data in the transfer pricing study report maintained as per Section 92D of the Act read with I Ol) of the Rules ... assessee has arrived at a set of 7 companies with an average margin of 1.54%. The assessee has used multiple year data. The assessee's own margin is worked out to be (3.87%). Based on the analysis, the assessee has concluded that its international transactions are at arm's length

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited(Erstwhile Excellence Data Research Private Limited), Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 13/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Hyd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S. Cognizant Technology- The Acit, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-17(1), 9Th Floor, (As Successor In Interest Of Erstwhile Excellence Data Signature Towers, Opp: Botanical Garden, Research Pvt. Ltd.), 6Th Floor, New No.165, Old No.110, Kondapur, Hyderabad. Menon Eternity Building, St. Mary’S Road,Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. [Pan: Aabce 4933 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S.P.Chidambaram, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

upholding the use of different financial year-end filter for rejection of comparable companies while undertaking the comparative analysis Rejection of use of multiple year data 12 That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP erred in rejecting the use of multiple year data

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

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

facts of the case and in law, the AO/Ld. TPO/ Hon’ble DRP has erred in rejecting the Appellant’s claim to use multiple year data for computing the arm’s length price and, instead, has adhered to the use of single year updated data to conclude ... facts of the case and in law, Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/Hon'ble DRP has erred in rejecting the Appellant's claim to use multiple year data for computing the arm's length price and, instead, has adhered to the use of single year updated data to conclude

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1166/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

case and in law, the Hon’ble DRP has grossly erred in following the approach ofLd.TPO of not accepting the use of multiple year data and determining the arm's length margins using data pertaining only to FY2009-10. 21. Without prejudice to above, the Hon’ble DRP has erred

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1026/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

case and in law, the Hon’ble DRP has grossly erred in following the approach ofLd.TPO of not accepting the use of multiple year data and determining the arm's length margins using data pertaining only to FY2009-10. 21. Without prejudice to above, the Hon’ble DRP has erred

Pegasystems Worldwide India Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 342/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.342/Hyd/2016 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Pegasystems Worldwide Vs. Income Tax Officer India (P) Ltd Ward 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecp3453F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Cas Kranthi & Mrudulatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri M Vijay Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CAs Kranthi & MrudulathaFor Respondent: : Shri M Vijay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Worldwide India Pvt Ltd 2. The assessee has raised multiple grounds on various issues, including rejection of T.P documentation, rejection of use of multiple year data, negative working capital adjustment, inclusion of certain comparables and exclusion of certain comparables, but restricted its arguments only on the grounds relating to inclusion/exclusion ... comparables. 16. The assessee has raised various grounds relating to other issues including computation of net margin, incorrect selection of filters, selection of multiple year data, negative working capital adjustment and adjustment for risk differences etc., Since the learned Counsel for the assessee restricted his submission with regard to comparables

ADIT, Cirlce- 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. American Express Banking Corp. (India Branch), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6455/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 92C(3)Section 92F

Appellant at the time complying with the Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation requirement under the Act. The Ld. AO/TPO/CIT (A) ought to have used multiple year data which would have captured normal market cycles and reduced the variability/distortions in the financial results arising out of single year data 13. The Learned

American Express Banking Corp. (India Branch), New Delhi vs. ADIT, Cirlce- 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6253/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 92C(3)Section 92F

Appellant at the time complying with the Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation requirement under the Act. The Ld. AO/TPO/CIT (A) ought to have used multiple year data which would have captured normal market cycles and reduced the variability/distortions in the financial results arising out of single year data 13. The Learned

Corteva Agriscience Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the Ground No

ITA 253/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bansal, CA and Shri Rohit Mittal, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(4)Section 92C

erred in upholding the use of different financial year end filter for rejecting comparable companies while undertaking the fresh economic analysis. Use of multiple year data 14. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the use of multiple year

Honda Trading Asia Co. Ltd., Thailand vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation Circle, Noida

ITA 7276/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 12Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 234ASection 234D

made full and complete disclosure in the return of income. 13. That the TPO/DRP erred in using single year data as against the multiple year data, in order to compute the Arm's length Price of the international transactions That the above grounds are without prejudice to each other

Honda Trading Asia Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

ITA 1160/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 12Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 234ASection 234D

made full and complete disclosure in the return of income. 13. That the TPO/DRP erred in using single year data as against the multiple year data, in order to compute the Arm's length Price of the international transactions That the above grounds are without prejudice to each other

Macromill Research India LLP (Formerly Market Tools Research P. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Cirlce-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 501/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav
Section 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 92C(2)

adjustment of Rs. 4,50,22,242 to the international transactions relating to provision of ITES services to AE; Rejection of use of multiple year data 2. Rejecting the use of multiple year data and using data for the FY 2009-10 only; Use of additional filters 3. Inter-alia

ACIT, Cirlce-5 (1), Hyderabad vs. Market Tools Research Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 424/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav
Section 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 92C(2)

adjustment of Rs. 4,50,22,242 to the international transactions relating to provision of ITES services to AE; Rejection of use of multiple year data 2. Rejecting the use of multiple year data and using data for the FY 2009-10 only; Use of additional filters 3. Inter-alia