← 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

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

ITA 1935/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

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

Macromill Research India LLP (Formerly Market Tools Research Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1866/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

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

Azingo Soft Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Secunderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 460/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 92C

revenue filter; d) Persistent loss filter; e) Different financial year-end filter; and f) Companies having extreme profit margin Rejection of use of multiple year data 13. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO /DRP erred in rejecting the use of multiple year

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Azingo Soft Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 331/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 92C

revenue filter; d) Persistent loss filter; e) Different financial year-end filter; and f) Companies having extreme profit margin Rejection of use of multiple year data 13. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO /DRP erred in rejecting the use of multiple year

DCIT (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly

ITA 7309/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

data for financial year 2006-07 was not available, for 13 comparable out of 22 comparable would not allow the assessee to consider multiple year data. We do not find any error or infirmity in the application of single year data used by the Transfer Pricing Officer. We accordingly, decline

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) -3, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 7010/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

data for financial year 2006-07 was not available, for 13 comparable out of 22 comparable would not allow the assessee to consider multiple year data. We do not find any error or infirmity in the application of single year data used by the Transfer Pricing Officer. We accordingly, decline

DCIT (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 4788/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

data for financial year 2006-07 was not available, for 13 comparable out of 22 comparable would not allow the assessee to consider multiple year data. We do not find any error or infirmity in the application of single year data used by the Transfer Pricing Officer. We accordingly, decline

DCIT (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly

ITA 4787/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

data for financial year 2006-07 was not available, for 13 comparable out of 22 comparable would not allow the assessee to consider multiple year data. We do not find any error or infirmity in the application of single year data used by the Transfer Pricing Officer. We accordingly, decline

The Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Range -3, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly

ITA 4767/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

data for financial year 2006-07 was not available, for 13 comparable out of 22 comparable would not allow the assessee to consider multiple year data. We do not find any error or infirmity in the application of single year data used by the Transfer Pricing Officer. We accordingly, decline

The Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Range -3, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the assessee are partly

ITA 4766/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

data for financial year 2006-07 was not available, for 13 comparable out of 22 comparable would not allow the assessee to consider multiple year data. We do not find any error or infirmity in the application of single year data used by the Transfer Pricing Officer. We accordingly, decline

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 309/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.309/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Oakton Global Technology Vs. Income Tax Officer Services Centre (India) (P) Ltd, Ward 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaaco8824H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(5)

making an adjustment of Rs 77,411,952 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 2011-12 only; Use of additional filters 3) Inter-alia ... raised number of grounds in respect of incorrect rejection of transfer pricing study conducted by the assessee, use of additional filters, rejection of multiple year data, selection of comparables, rejection of comparable and error in margin computation, but the learned Counsel for the assessee restricted his argument in respect

Bundy India Ltd., Baroda vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1764/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

case of Chryscapital Investment Advisers(India)(Pvt.) Limited Vs DCIT (56 taxmann.com, 417) (Delhi) that while determining the comparability of transactions, multiple year data can only be included in the manner provided in rule 10 B(4) and as a general rule, it is not open to the assessee ... rely upon previous year’s data. To quote from the order: 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 into account only

DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Htc India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1785/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kr. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

Court in the case of PCIT vs.  Giesecke and Devrient India Pvt. Ltd. [2019-TII-86-HC- DEL-TP] held that “adoption of multiple year data for arriving at ALP was a bonafide exercise, and therefore, differences in ALP arising on account of differences of opinion between the TPO & Assessee ... with regard to use of multiple year data could not form basis for levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act.” 8. On going through the above judgments, the ld. CIT(A), Sh. G. K. Dhall rightly deleted the addition holding that “the Assessing Officer, while imposing

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

Page 1 ITA No.739/Mum/2022 Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solutions Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX

M/S. Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc India Limited), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 381/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154Section 92CSection 92C(3)

considering the functional and risk analysis of the Assessee; 3.3. The TPO erred in law and on facts in disregarding the application of multiple-year data while computing the margins of alleged comparable companies; Directions: DRP has duly considered submissions of the assessee. It is seen that TPO has rejected ... analysis of the assessee after giving cogent reasons in para 34 of his order. Further, the issue regarding use of single year vs multiple year data has been decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt Ltd vs DCIT

Yokogawa India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayers Unit, Bangalore

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

ITA 2088/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

search beyond the due date prescribed for maintaining the TP documentation and also Page 2 of 40 rejecting the use of multiple year data by the assessee in its TP documentation. 2. Impugned order erroneously determines TP adjustment in relation to trading segment by attributing notional shortfall in profits entirely

Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 619/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Renishaw Metrology Systems The Dy.Commissioner Limited, V Of Income Tax, Circle- S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, S 5, Pune. Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Taluk – Mulshi, Dist-Pune. Pan: Aabcr6361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain & Shri Siddesh Chaugule – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024

Section 194ASection 271Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

comparable companies; 3.2 not allowing risk adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10B of the Rules; 3.3 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 Rule 1OD of the Rules

Asst CIT RG 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Crisil Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the issue under

ITA 843/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And

America Express Services India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3525/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Appellant at the time of complying with the transfer pricing documentation requirements and disregarding the Appellant's claim for use of multiple year data for computing the arm's length price. 13. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/TPO/CIT(A) have erred ... Appellant at the time of complying with the transfer pricing documentation requirements and disregarding the Appellant's claim for use of multiple year data for computing the arm's length price. 3.3 That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO/TPO/ the DRP have erred

M/S. American Express Services India Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3447/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Appellant at the time of complying with the transfer pricing documentation requirements and disregarding the Appellant's claim for use of multiple year data for computing the arm's length price. 13. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/TPO/CIT(A) have erred ... Appellant at the time of complying with the transfer pricing documentation requirements and disregarding the Appellant's claim for use of multiple year data for computing the arm's length price. 3.3 That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO/TPO/ the DRP have erred