← 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

Eversendai Construction Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2084/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2084/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Eversendai Construction- V. The Dy. Commissioner- Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Plot No.1 & 2, The Lords, Corporate Circle-2(1), Block-1, 5Th Floor, Chennai. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai.

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

fixed cost to sales ratio of the Appellant is 26.62% as against 13.01% of the comparable companies selected in TP Order. Use of multiple year data: 2.13 The AO/ DRP has erred in law and in facts by confirming the order of the TPO in rejecting the application of multiple ... than a year and hence considering only single year data would resort to distorted results and thereby erred in rejecting the use of multiple year data. 2.15 The AO/DRP failed to appreciate the fact that the current year data would not be available in the public domain to calculate

Munich Re India Service P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2126/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta
Section 92C(3)

Rules, stating that the appellant is not a risk carrier and hence and to not granting the risk adjustment. 9. Use of Multiple Year Data The Ld CIT(A) further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the TPO wherein the TPO wrongly disregarded the multiple year analysis undertaken

M/S. Ig Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 204/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92C

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 facilitate ... 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as revenue stands dismissed

ITA 869/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Thomson Holding India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Robinson Air The Deputy Services Central Commissioner Of Income Warehousing Tax, Corporation, Circle – 16(1), Opp. Sbi Colony, New Delhi. Rana Pratap Bagh, Vs. G.T. Karnal Road, New Delhi – 110 033. Pan: Aacct0862G Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Technicolor India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Thomson The Deputy Holdings India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 306-308, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Bestech Chambers Circle – 16(1), Block B, Sushant Lok-I, New Delhi. Vs. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 009. Pan: Aacct0862G Appellant Respondent : Shri Mukesh Butani, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Revenue By Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Butani
Section 920(2)

AO/DRP/TPO have erred in ignoring the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Rules and judicial pronouncements, which advocate usage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the arm's length price. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute

M/S. Thomson Holdings India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1911/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Thomson Holding India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Robinson Air The Deputy Services Central Commissioner Of Income Warehousing Tax, Corporation, Circle – 16(1), Opp. Sbi Colony, New Delhi. Rana Pratap Bagh, Vs. G.T. Karnal Road, New Delhi – 110 033. Pan: Aacct0862G Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Technicolor India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Thomson The Deputy Holdings India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 306-308, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Bestech Chambers Circle – 16(1), Block B, Sushant Lok-I, New Delhi. Vs. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 009. Pan: Aacct0862G Appellant Respondent : Shri Mukesh Butani, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Revenue By Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Butani
Section 920(2)

AO/DRP/TPO have erred in ignoring the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Rules and judicial pronouncements, which advocate usage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the arm's length price. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute

Mfx Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 251/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144B

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 facilitate ... 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

Softlayer Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 265/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

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 facilitate ... 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

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 703/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

required under law. 10. The AO/TPO/DRP erred in not applying the turnover filter as per law. 11. The AO/TPO/DRP erred in not considering multiple year data white determining the ALP. 12. The AO/TPO/DRP erred in considering information gathered on the basis of responses received

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited (Earlier Known As Ge Medical Systems India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 344/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

required under law. 10. The AO/TPO/DRP erred in not applying the turnover filter as per law. 11. The AO/TPO/DRP erred in not considering multiple year data white determining the ALP. 12. The AO/TPO/DRP erred in considering information gathered on the basis of responses received

Technimont Spa India Project Office, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.691/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Tecnimont Spa India बिधम/ Additional Director Of Office Income Tax-(It)-Range-2 Vs. Tecnimont Icb House, 1St Floor, R. No. 108, Chincholi Bunder, 504 Link Scindia House, Ballard Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- Estate, N. M. Road, 400064. Mumbai-400038. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact8224A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. P. Lohia/ Shri Pranav Gandhi Revenue By: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter “Ao”) Dated 30.11.2012 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Only Issue Is Regarding The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Ao Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Direction. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Is A Foreign Company Incorporated At Milan, Italy & It Has A Project Office In India Which Is The Permanent Establishment (Pe). According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Has Been Awarded A Project By M/S. Indian Oil Corporation (Hereinafter “M/S. Iocl”) At Panipat Project. The Assessee In Turn Has Awarded The Same Project To Two (2) Of Its Associated Enterprises/Ae’S

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia/ Shri PranavFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92B

price and taken the mean profit of each comparable only from the segmental data/results. Though the TPO initially raised an objection of using multiple year data, however, we note that during the couse of proceedings before the TPO, the assessee furnished the updated current year data, mean margin ... which works out to 15.31%.” 12. It is clear that after submitting the updated margins of the comparables, the objection of using multiple year data ceased to exist. Once the criteria adopted by the TPO for rejecting the comparable of the set of companies selected by the assessee

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

Pricing Officer also pointed out defect in accepting TNMM as the most appropriate method to benchmark the transaction. Further, the Assessee had used multiple year data. He also observed that eleven companies selected by the Assessee also cannot be treated as comparables. Thus, ultimately, the Transfer Pricing Officer not only

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7644/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(1) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai Pan: Aaach2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 144C(5)Section 35DSection 92C(2)

ignoring the provisions of Rule 10B(3) of the Income- tax Rules, 1962, which envisage usage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the arm's length price and using single year data for computing arms length price. GROUND NO. 2 (a) The learned

M/S. Hewlett-Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 3, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2575/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 2575/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biju M.K. , CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

general ii. Ground No. 3: Rejection of the Transfer Pricing Study of the assessee. iii. Ground No. 4: Use of multiple year data iv. Ground No. 5: Filters and qualitative criteria applied by the appellant 2 IT(TP)A No. 2575/Bang/2019 M/s. Hewlett-Packard (India) v. Ground

Hsbc Professional Services (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

ITA 8823/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

assessee benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee but he rejected the weighted average of multiple year data adopted by the rejected the weighted average of multiple year data adopted by the rejected the weighted average of multiple year data adopted

DCIT RG 8(2) (OSD), Mumbai vs. Hsbc Professional Services (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 8753/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Jcit-8(2), (Osd), M/S Hsbc Professional Services Room No. 216-A, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kamla Bhavan, Swami Nityanand Mumbai-400020. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hsbc Professional Services The Deputy Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited, Income-Tax Range 8(2), 6Th Floor, Shiv Building, Cts Vs. Mumbai. No. 139 & 140B, Sahar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aabch 0705 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

assessee benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee but he rejected the weighted average of multiple year data adopted by the rejected the weighted average of multiple year data adopted by the rejected the weighted average of multiple year data adopted

Citrix R & D India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 220/BANG/2021[2016-17`]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 220/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Citrix R&D India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Prestige Dynasty, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Income Tax, 33/2, Ulsoor Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn3639C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Mathivanan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Transfer Pricing - 2. That The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore ("Assessing Officer" Or "Learned Ao") & The Dispute Resolution Panel - 1 ("Learned Panel" Or "Learned Drp")

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, CIT-DR

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 facilitate ... 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

Jardine Lloyd Thomposn India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1319/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1319/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Marsh Mclennan Global बिधम/ Ito, Range-15(2)(2) Services India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. (Formerly Known As Jardine Mumbai-400020. Lloyd Thompson India Pvt. Ltd.) 1001-A, Supreme Business Park, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400076. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj8288K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishant Thakkar / Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Revenue By: Ms. Samruddhi Hande (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2015 Passed For Ay. 2010-11 By Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) In Pursuance To The Directions Given By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp).

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar / Ms. JasminFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

similar to that of the Appellant, in determining the ALP of the impugned international transaction; and In rejecting the use of contemporaneous and multiple year data available for computing the ALP as on the date of filing of return of income and relying only on single year data

Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai vs. Geometric Softwar Solutions Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground no

ITA 6219/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Geometric Software The Acit Solutions Company Ltd. Ward 10(2), [ Now Merged With Hcl Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Technologies Limited ] Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Mumbai-400 020 Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcg 0066 A Co No. 157/Mum/2011 (Arising In Ita No.6219/Mum/2010 For A.Y. 2005–06) M/S Geometric Software Solutions Company Ltd. The Acit (Now Gemetric Ltd.) [ Now Ward 10(2), Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Merged With Hcl Vs. Technologies Limited] Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri Porus F. Kaka & Shri Manish Kanth, Ars‟ Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Porus F. Kaka &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 10ASection 14A

Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing – 1 (3) Mumbai (the learned TPO). The learned TPO found that assessee has taken a multiple year data and for other reasons he rejected the comparability analysis. Thereafter he carried out fresh search, selected 19 comparables, computed their profit level indicator of OP/TC

Geometric Software Solutins Co. Ltd ( Now Gemetric Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no

ITA 5975/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Geometric Software The Acit Solutions Company Ltd. Ward 10(2), [ Now Merged With Hcl Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Technologies Limited ] Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Mumbai-400 020 Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcg 0066 A Co No. 157/Mum/2011 (Arising In Ita No.6219/Mum/2010 For A.Y. 2005–06) M/S Geometric Software Solutions Company Ltd. The Acit (Now Gemetric Ltd.) [ Now Ward 10(2), Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Merged With Hcl Vs. Technologies Limited] Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri Porus F. Kaka & Shri Manish Kanth, Ars‟ Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Porus F. Kaka &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 10ASection 14A

Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing – 1 (3) Mumbai (the learned TPO). The learned TPO found that assessee has taken a multiple year data and for other reasons he rejected the comparability analysis. Thereafter he carried out fresh search, selected 19 comparables, computed their profit level indicator of OP/TC

M/S Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 181/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., No. 10 Brindavan, The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Yashoda Nagar Main Income Tax, Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Jakkur Plantation, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan: Aaacq0656P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahaveer C Jain, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 25/01/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer C Jain, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

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 facilitate ... 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