← 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

Hewitt Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5418/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2008-09 Hewitt Associates (India) Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Hewitt Tower, Circle – 10 (1) Sector-42, Dlf City, New Delhi Gurgaon Haryana Pan No.Aabch1559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ajit Jain, Ca Sh. Arpan Khanna, Ca Sh. Piyush Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 Order

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92F

relying upon data of the comparables for financial year 2007- 08 only for determination of the arm's length price, disregarding the multiple year data approach followed by the Assessee. 11. By relying upon updated data of the Comparables which was not available to the Assessee at the time

Intergreon Munaged Solutions (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 586/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved
Section 250Section 92D

providing high end services. 7 Ground 6: Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of learned AO TPO in disregarding the multiple year data 7.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A0 /TP0 erred ... persistent losses for last 3 years Advertisement marketing and distribution expenses /sales<3% RPT/Total revenue < 10% RPT/Total revenue < 25% Export sales/total sales > 75% Multiple year data Single year data Income from ITes/operating revenue > 75% 20. It is observed that the A.O./TPO had rejected the comparables selected by the assessee

Integreon Managed Solutions (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2307/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved
Section 250Section 92D

providing high end services. 7 Ground 6: Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of learned AO TPO in disregarding the multiple year data 7.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A0 /TP0 erred ... persistent losses for last 3 years Advertisement marketing and distribution expenses /sales<3% RPT/Total revenue < 10% RPT/Total revenue < 25% Export sales/total sales > 75% Multiple year data Single year data Income from ITes/operating revenue > 75% 20. It is observed that the A.O./TPO had rejected the comparables selected by the assessee

ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Integreon Managed Solution (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2095/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved
Section 250Section 92D

providing high end services. 7 Ground 6: Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of learned AO TPO in disregarding the multiple year data 7.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A0 /TP0 erred ... persistent losses for last 3 years Advertisement marketing and distribution expenses /sales<3% RPT/Total revenue < 10% RPT/Total revenue < 25% Export sales/total sales > 75% Multiple year data Single year data Income from ITes/operating revenue > 75% 20. It is observed that the A.O./TPO had rejected the comparables selected by the assessee

Sabre Travel Network (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1056/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)Section 92C

PBIT on Cost inste. of berry ratio for the purpose of benchmarking analysis; 11. The learned AO erred in not using multiple year data as prescribed in Rule 10B(4) of t Income Tax Rules,1962. 12. The learned AO erred in law by initiating penalty proceedings

Qad India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is disposed off as being general in nature, Ground No. 2 relating to selection of comparables is partly allowed in terms of paragraph 5 to 6

ITA 4098/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Ms. RiddhiFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

decision of the Learned AO in considering financial data of only the current year (FY 2009-10) of the comparable companies instead of multiple year data to be used for benchmarking the Appellant's international transaction. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

Rules") by the Appellant. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the Ld. AO/ TPO's approach of rejecting the multiple year data used by the Appellant in its transfer pricing documentation. 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming

Standard Chartered Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2546/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

during the year under consideration. In the earlier years, it was very much comparable with the assessee company. Since the assessee had considered multiple year data, it selected this company as a comparable company. When single year data is considered, it cannot be considered as a comparable company, since

Tcs E- Serve Ltd ( Earlier Known As E- Serve International Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 9(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ITA number 7448/M/2010 for assessment year 2005 – 06 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2540/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No.151/Mm/2012 (Arising In Ita No. 2380/Mum/2011 For A.Y. 2005-06) Tata Consultancy Services The Additional Commissioner Limited Of Income-Tax (Upon Merger Of Tcs E-Serve 9(1) Limited With Tata Consultancy Aaykar Bhavan, Services Limited) Vs. 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building, M. Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc4480F

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143

avail tax exemptions under section 10 A of the income tax act 1961. iii. The CIT (A) ought to have held that the multiple year data for comparability purposes should be considered as the data for financial year 2004 – 05 was not available with the respondent at the time

ACIT 9(3), Mumbai vs. Tcs E-Serve Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, ITA number 7448/M/2010 for assessment year 2005 – 06 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2380/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No.151/Mm/2012 (Arising In Ita No. 2380/Mum/2011 For A.Y. 2005-06) Tata Consultancy Services The Additional Commissioner Limited Of Income-Tax (Upon Merger Of Tcs E-Serve 9(1) Limited With Tata Consultancy Aaykar Bhavan, Services Limited) Vs. 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building, M. Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc4480F

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143

avail tax exemptions under section 10 A of the income tax act 1961. iii. The CIT (A) ought to have held that the multiple year data for comparability purposes should be considered as the data for financial year 2004 – 05 was not available with the respondent at the time

ACIT 9(3), Mumbai vs. Tcs E-Serve Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, ITA number 7448/M/2010 for assessment year 2005 – 06 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7448/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No.151/Mm/2012 (Arising In Ita No. 2380/Mum/2011 For A.Y. 2005-06) Tata Consultancy Services The Additional Commissioner Limited Of Income-Tax (Upon Merger Of Tcs E-Serve 9(1) Limited With Tata Consultancy Aaykar Bhavan, Services Limited) Vs. 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building, M. Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc4480F

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143

avail tax exemptions under section 10 A of the income tax act 1961. iii. The CIT (A) ought to have held that the multiple year data for comparability purposes should be considered as the data for financial year 2004 – 05 was not available with the respondent at the time

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 319/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

cogent reasons. 4.3 Ignoring the provisions of the Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) which authoress abusage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the ALP under section 92F of the Act. 4.4 Rejecting the comparable companies identified

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. The ACIT-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 292/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

cogent reasons. 4.3 Ignoring the provisions of the Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) which authoress abusage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the ALP under section 92F of the Act. 4.4 Rejecting the comparable companies identified

M/S. Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Indore vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 179/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

cogent reasons. 4.3 Ignoring the provisions of the Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) which authoress abusage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the ALP under section 92F of the Act. 4.4 Rejecting the comparable companies identified

Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 4767/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumar, Accountant Membr Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 144CSection 254Section 260ASection 36(1)(ii)

eliminated. Unless such differences cannot be eliminated, the entity should be included as a comparable. b. While determining the comparability of transactions, multiple year data can only be included in the manner provided in Rule ITA 417/2014 Page 52 10B(4). As a general rule, it is not open

Excellence Data Research Private Limited, Hyderabad, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 461/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) –Ld. DR
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 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP erred in rejecting the use of multiple year data

It Expressway Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1040/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) –Ld. DR
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 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP erred in rejecting the use of multiple year data

Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80G

available at the time of furnishing the return of income of the relevant assessment year.] 53. According to the above rule use of multiple year data would be used in the cases where TNMM, RPM or CPM is used as the most appropriate method to benchmark the transaction. The rule

Fireeye Cybersecurity Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 292/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 292/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mandiant Cyber Security Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Fireeye The Deputy Cybersecurity Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 5, Front Wing Circle – 3(1)(1), Salarpuria Infinity, Vs. Bengaluru. 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan: Aaccf1341A Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Passed By National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 30/04/2021 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

look at the amendment to the rules that allow for introduction of a "range concept" for determination of ALP and "use of multiple year data" for undertaking comparability analysis in transfer pricing cases. The provisions of the Income-tax Act were amended through the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 to Page ... after PY 2014-15. The amended rules allow for introduction of a "range concept" for determination of ALP and "use of multiple year data" for undertaking comparability analysis in transfer pricing cases. The use of range concept being a statistical tool enhances the reliability of analysis undertaken for computation

Travelex India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 1214/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)Section 92C

AO/TPO/ DRP erred in: a. rejecting the search process followed by the Appellant and carrying out a fresh search; b. rejecting multiple year data; c. not considering the Appellant as a low risk captive service provider; d. including certain comparables, which were not comparable; e. considering erroneous margins