“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

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

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

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

M/S.Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 474/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.474/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Crystal Downs, Embassy Golf Links Business Circle – 3(1)(2), Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaccg 2435 N Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Length Price ("ALP") by adopting the financial data for a single year (i.e. the financial year 2011-12) of the comparables as against multiple year data considered by the Appellant. 1.4 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO/ TPO have erred in determining the ALP based on following companies which

American Power Conversion (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

limited to only 23 days. 5 Common grounds 5.1 That the learned TPO and the learned AO erred in disregarding the use of multiple year data and ought to have accepted the use of contemporaneous data due to non-availability of current year data in the public domain ... compared and unless contemporaneous data as section 92D read with Rule 10 D (4), is not available for a relevant year, multiple year data should not be used. Characterisation: Based upon above FAR analysis, we shall now undertake compatibility tests of assessee with comparables under objection for inclusion. Page

DCIT 7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Tl, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1546/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmangoldman Sachs (India) Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 522, Aayakar Bhavan, 951 A, Rational House, Vs M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Room No. 522, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, Vs 951 A, Rational House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate Sh. M. Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

following company with supernormal profits as comparable to the appellant : Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. g) 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 the single year data ... adjustment on account of differences between the working capital of the Appellant and the comparable companies; g) 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 Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Ltd

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1115/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

M/S Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 3168/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

software development services and holding that the said transaction is not at arm's length. 3. Erred by rejecting the use of multiple year data by the Appellant in determining the arm's length nature of the international transaction of software development services and by determining the arm's length

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Herbal Life International India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

ITA 2587/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2220/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2219/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Cenduit (India) Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

erred in law and on facts, in not complying with Rule 10B(5) of the Rules relating to use of multiple year data while undertaking fresh benchmarking analysis. 8. The Ld. AO and Ld. TPO erred in law and on facts, by gathering information

Nomura Services India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2303/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenomura Services India Vs. Dcit – Circle 10(3) Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 10Th Floor, Nomura, Mk Road, Off High Street, Mumbai – 400020. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400076. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcl0053C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Faruk Irani & Mr Sumin Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Mrs.Vatsala Jha. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance To Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/Sec144C(5) Of The Act Dated 07.09.2012. Nomura Services India P Ltd., Mumbai. 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal As Under:

For Appellant: Mr.Faruk Irani &For Respondent: Mrs.Vatsala Jha. DR

Section 143(3)

functionally comparable. d.Using non-contemporaneous data for calculating arm's length price (ALP) of the international transaction entered by the Appellant. e.Rejecting the multiple year data and relying only on data for the year ended March 2008 for the comparable companies. f.Not granting the working capital adjustment as determined ... exceptional year of operations. d Using non-contemporaneous data for calculating ALP of the international transaction entered by the Appellant. e. Rejecting the multiple year data and relying only on data for the year ended March 2008 for the comparable companies. f. Not granting the working capital adjustment as determined

M/S Software Paradigms Infotech Private Limited, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mysore

ITA 2828/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2828/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Software Paradigms The Assistant Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 316-318, Spi City, Income Tax, Hebbal Industrial Area, Circle – 1 (1), Mysuru – 570016. Mysuru. Vs. Pan: Aalcs7583C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 24.10.2017 Passed By The Acit, Circle – 1 (1), Mysuru U/S. 143(3) R.W. 92Ca R.W. 144C(5) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Orders Of The Tpo / Drp / Assessing Officer In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself To Be Assessed On A Total Income Of Rs. 10,50,75,429/- As Against Income Of Rs. 6,77,58,220/- As Declared By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

study of the appellant. b) Conducting the new study without rejecting all the comparables of the appellant. c) Rejecting the use of multiple year data while arriving at appropriate comparables. d) Using data of comparable companies which was not available in public domain at the time of preparing the transfer

Bertelsmann Marketing Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6577/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Majorel India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (“Company”) (Earlier Known Circle 4(2) As Bertelsmann Marketing New Delhi Services India Pvt. Ltd.)215, Second Floor, Suneja Tower- Ii, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi Aabcb8378G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv & Sh. Yishu Goel, Adv Respondent By Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 12.11.2021

Section 144CSection 271Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(3)

services as compared to the Appellant. 8. The DRP/AO/TPO erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law by disregarding the multiple year data selected by the Appellant in the transfer pricing report and in selecting the current year (i.e. financial year 2011-12) data for comparability

Dassault Systems India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2486/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal [CIT] – DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

have erredby ignoring the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Rules and judicial pronouncements, which advocates the usage of multiple year data of comparable companies for the purpose of determination of the arm’s length price as defined under section 92F of the Act. 5. Thatonthe facts and circumstances ... arms’ length. 4. The ld. Transfer Pricing Officer pointed out infirmities in the transfer pricing study report of the assessee, such as, adopting multiple year data, turnover filter service income, filter related party transaction filter etc. and thereafter- other collaboration filters. The ld. TPO found that assessee has characterized itself

Cpa Global Support Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6815/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surenderpal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 274Section 92Section 92C

Risk profile; and 4.4 The Ld. DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law by 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

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2162/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Surenderpal, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

relying upon data of the comparables for financial year 2009-10 only for determination of the arm's length price, disregarding the multiple year data approach followed by the Appellant. The Ld. TPO also erred by relying upon updated data of the Comparables which was not available to the Appellant

Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 8229/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate; & MsFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal [CIT] – DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

data of companies to determine the arm‟s length price of the impugned transaction and disregarding the Appellant‟s claim for use of multiple year data for computing the arm‟s length price; and b. Rejecting the data used by the Appellant which was available to it at the relevant

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. At Kearney Ltd.- India Branch Office, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.7888/Del

ITA 7888/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: And Shri Ashish Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 195

order under section 92CA(3) has undertaken the following approach in respect of these international transactions :- a) He did not agree with the multiple year data used in the TP documentation in relation to comparable companies and was of the view that the financial information of comparable companies pertaining

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. At Kearney Ltd.- India Branch Office, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.7888/Del

ITA 7887/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: And Shri Ashish Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 195

Addl. CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi vs. St Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of

ITA 4774/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2005-06 Addl. Cit, Vs St Micro Electronics Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-8, 202-206,Tolstoy House, 15, New Delhi. Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaacs3406M Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 92C

impugned order. However, Ld.CIT(A ruled against assessee in respect of exclusion of Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., Working Capital Adjustment and adoption of multiple year data analysis. Further, Ld.CIT(A) in respect of depreciation 3 | P a g e ITA No. 4774/Del/2017 & C.O-54/Del/2018 allowed the claim of the assessee and regarding

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1687/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor advocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 92CSection 92C(2)

relying upon data of the comparables for financial year 2008-09 only for determination of the arm's length price, disregarding the multiple year data approach followed by the Assessee. The Ld. TPO also erred by relying upon updated data of the Comparables which was not available to the Assessee ... method as the most appropriate method as well as also accepted the profit level indicator of OP/OC. However he rejected the use of multiple year data used by the assessee for computation of the comparable margins. The learned transfer pricing officer noted that assessee did not apply proper criteria