“multiple year data”

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

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

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

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

Keihin Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with about directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Keihin Automotive Systems Pvt. Dcit, Ltd.[Now Amalgamated & Known As Vs. Keihin India Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.,] Circle: 2 (1), Plot No. 663, Phase–5, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Gurgaon. Haryana – 122 016. Pan: Aaeck4216F (Appellant) (Respondent)

that for considering the adjustment of the transfer pricing the assessee as well as the ld. TPO both have proceeded based on the multiple year data. It was stated that due to practical difficulty for availability of current year’s data relating to the comparables at the time of preparation ... current year data are to be used which are prescribed Under rule 10 B (4) of the income tax rules as against the multiple year data. We are of the view that as the law mandates only the use of the current year data, only it should be utilized

DCIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi vs. Ch2M Hill (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

order, the Assessee had taken a set of 8 comparable companies with an average margin of 14.65% and had used multiple year data. The Assessee’s own margin was worked at 41.31% using segmental data and, therefore, it was Assessee’s contention that its international transaction

Hcl Technologies Bpo Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Technologies Ltd( as successor in interest of HCL Technologies BPO Services Ltd). Additional grounds were also included. 10. Regarding use of multiple year data, he submitted that the assessee in its own TP Study report has taken the weighted average margin of two years and thus, assessee cannot take

Rlg Retail Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 20(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

Bench: Shr Amit Shuklaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Richemont India Private Vs. Limited Circle – 20 (2), Earlier M/S. Rlg Retail Pvt. Ltd., Regus Business Centre, New Delhi. Level–4, Rectangle–1, D–4, Commercial Complex, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. Pan: Aadcr9256R (Appellant) Respondent)

Corporation Ltd., and d. Saga Department Stores Ltd. The arithmetic mean of the margins of the comparable was computed at 32.61% using the multiple year data and stated that the international transaction of products of finished goods for re-sale adopting re-sale price method of Rs.7 ... Length. The ld. TPO examined the benchmarking method, rejected the use of multiple year data, and held that filter used by the assessee are not correct. He applied his own filter. Importantly he included a filter that the ratio of the trading to the total income is of at least

M/S Bergen Engines India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Bergen Engines India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit 2Nd Floor, 52-B, Okhla Circle-4(2) Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-3, Okhla New Delhi Aaecb7223M (Appellant) (Respondent)

seems to be copy- paste of some other assessee without application of mind on the facts of the assessee’s case. Such as multiple year data, provision for doubtful debts etc. are not relevant in the case of the assessee. The TPO has mentioned all the possible situations ... baseless. The Ld. AR further submitted that the TPO while supporting the use of current/single year data filter alleged that taxpayer has used multiple year data, which is totally wrong fact as the assessee himself used the current year data filter. The TPO reproduced the submission in support of multiple

Cpa Global Support Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

risk profile. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, DRP/AO/TPO erred in disregarding the multiple year data selected by the Appellant in the TP documentation and in selecting the current year (i.e. financial year 2011-12) data for comparability despite the fact

Prometric Testing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

support service for computer based testing and marketing support service segment and in view of the average margin of those comparables based on multiple year data, was worked out at 7.90%. The assessee’s margin being higher in both segments, the transactions were treated as at arm’s-length. Similarly

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Prometric Testing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

support service for computer based testing and marketing support service segment and in view of the average margin of those comparables based on multiple year data, was worked out at 7.90%. The assessee’s margin being higher in both segments, the transactions were treated as at arm’s-length. Similarly