← All Phrases

“contemporaneous data”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C79 judgments

The decision most relied on for contemporaneous data is DCIT v. Rehau Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (85 Taxmann.com 23), cited in 17 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on contemporaneous data

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.

Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
77 Taxmann.com 48 · 2017 · Reported
10
citing judgments

This case does not lay down a clear proposition of law based on the provided excerpts. The passages focus on listing other cases and describing the business of a company rather than stating a legal holding.

Judgments citing contemporaneous data

Deutsche India Pvt. Ltd.(Earlier Known As 'Dboi Global Services Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for 16

ITA 2522/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

erred in arbitrarily disregarding the benchmarking analysis and comparable companies selected by the Appellant based on the contemporaneous data in the transfer pricing study report maintained as per Section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income- tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') and various submissions made

Us Technology International P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 562/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Us Technology International Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) 621, Nila, Technopark Campus 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Kariyavattom, Trivandrum 695581 Kowdiar [Pan: Aaacu5628B] Thiruvananthapuram 695003 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 144C(3)Section 92C(3)

relation to the 'IT Services' 3.1. The Ld. AO/DRP erred on facts and in law in conducting a fresh benchmarking analysis using non contemporaneous data and substituting the Appellant's analysis with fresh benchmarking analysis on his own conjectures and surmises. 3.2. The Ld. AO/DRP grossly erred on facts

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 298/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 144C(10)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

filters adopted by the Assessee in its TP Study.and adopted certain additional filters / modified filters in selecting the comparable companies by -using non contemporaneous data of the said companies. 1.4 Rejection of the comparability analysis undertaken by the Assessee The Hon'ble DRP/ learned AO has erred

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

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 used for determining

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

learned Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) /TPO in disregarding the benchmarking analysis and comparable companies selected by the appellant company based on the contemporaneous data in the transfer pricing study report maintained as per section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules ... further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the learned A0 /TPO in conducting a fresh benchmarking analysis using non contemporaneous data and substituting the appellant company's analysis with fresh benchmarking analysis on his own conjectures and surmises. Thus, the appellant prays that the fresh benchmarking analysis conducted

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

learned Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) /TPO in disregarding the benchmarking analysis and comparable companies selected by the appellant company based on the contemporaneous data in the transfer pricing study report maintained as per section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules ... further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the learned A0 /TPO in conducting a fresh benchmarking analysis using non contemporaneous data and substituting the appellant company's analysis with fresh benchmarking analysis on his own conjectures and surmises. Thus, the appellant prays that the fresh benchmarking analysis conducted

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

learned Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) /TPO in disregarding the benchmarking analysis and comparable companies selected by the appellant company based on the contemporaneous data in the transfer pricing study report maintained as per section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules ... further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the learned A0 /TPO in conducting a fresh benchmarking analysis using non contemporaneous data and substituting the appellant company's analysis with fresh benchmarking analysis on his own conjectures and surmises. Thus, the appellant prays that the fresh benchmarking analysis conducted

Emerson Network Power (India) P.Ltd, Thane vs. Addl CIT RG 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2286/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

avail the said services. The answer to the same is No In any case, the perusal of various evidences filed by the assessee i.e. contemporaneous data available on record shows that it is highly technical and the same has been used by the assessee for carrying on its business activities ... provided stands established. Once the same is established by way of assessee producing several evidences before the TPO which were in the form of contemporaneous data, then the TPO is precluded from commenting upon the same and holding that the assessee had not received any services and also there

Emerson Network Power (India) Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. DCIT Cir. 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2120/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)

avail the said services. The answer to the same is No In any case, the perusal of various evidences filed by the assessee i.e. contemporaneous data available on record shows that it is highly technical and the same has been used by the assessee for carrying on its business activities ... provided stands established. Once the same is established by way of assessee producing several evidences before the TPO which were in the form of contemporaneous data, then the TPO is precluded from commenting upon the same and holding that the assessee had not received any services and also there

Turner & Townsend Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8763/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Shri Mrinal Kumar, Sr. DFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar, Sr. D
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

Level Indicator (PLI) at the time of Transfer Pricing Documentation. The same remains undisputed by the Ld. TPO. (iii) That in the absence of contemporaneous data available for the year under appeal at the time of preparation of Transfer Pricing documentation, the aforesaid PU was calculated considering the financial results ... Proceeded to determine the arm's length price ["ALP"] of the relevant international transaction by using the current year (contemporaneous) data only in view of proviso to rule 109(4) versus T&T's use of three year average. • Discussed the filters applied and not applied by the Appellant

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)

observations:- I Services India Pvt Ltd 7.14 Assessee sought removal of this company due to functional dissimilarity, super normal profit and non availability of contemporaneous data in public domain. On a perusal of facts on record, we find that this company is engaged in providing remote data entry services ... Service India Pvt Ltd (supra), which is also for the very same assessment year, this company has been excluded due to non availability of contemporaneous data in public domain. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, we exclude this company from the list of comparables. 9 Standard Chartered

Tpg Growth II Makets Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dinesh BafnaFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5Section 9Section 92C(3)

this period which might have impacted the share prices which is not taken into consideration by the assessee. For comparability under CUP or otherwise, contemporaneous data is a must under transfer pricing regulations/Secondly the third party purchases are bound by Share Holders Agreement between the promoters who are also

Deutsche Investor Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2), Mumbai

ITA 1837/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92DSection 92F

comparable companies selected by the Appellant (which were engaged in providing system integration, software testing and IT Infrastructure Management etc.) based on the contemporaneous data in the Transfer Pricing Study Report maintained as per section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules ... comparable companies selected by the Appellant (which were engaged in providing system integration, software testing and IT Infrastructure Management etc.) based on the contemporaneous data in the Transfer Pricing Study Report maintained as per section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 40A(2)

similar to that of the tested party: a) Use of current year data: As per Rule 1013 '4), it is mandatory to use the contemporaneous data, Le,, the data fin- the F. Y. 2013-14. The proviso to Rule 1013 (4) says that data for earlier two years can, also

Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 282/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92C(3)Section 92DSection 9A(3)

upholding the actions of the Ld. TPO/ NFAC. 4.3. The Ld. TPO/ NFAC erred in conducting a fresh comparability/ benchmarking analysis using "non-contemporaneous" data and substituting the Appellant's analysis with the fresh benchmarking analysis on mere conjectures and surmises. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the actions ... filter of 25% applied by the Ld. TPO himself. The Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the actions of the Ld. TPO/ NFAC Non-contemporaneous data and impossibility of performance 7.5. The Ld. TPO/NFAC, without taking due cognizance of Rule 10D and Rule 10B of the Rules. erred in selecting

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 134/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Appellant. • The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in law in holding that the fresh comparability analysis using non contemporaneous data conducted by the Ld TPO and further substituting the Appellant's analysis with fresh benchmarking, analysis on his own conjectures and surmises. Thus, the Appellant

M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commisssioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 2834/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Appellant. • The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in law in holding that the fresh comparability analysis using non contemporaneous data conducted by the Ld TPO and further substituting the Appellant's analysis with fresh benchmarking, analysis on his own conjectures and surmises. Thus, the Appellant

Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 642/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

determined by the Appellant. 2.5 The Ld. Panel and the AO/ TPO erred in law in holding that the fresh comparability analysis using non contemporaneous data conducted by the TPO and further substituting the Appellant's analysis with fresh benchmarking analysis on his own conjectures and surmises. Thus, the Appellant

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 641/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

determined by the Appellant. 2.5 The Ld. Panel and the AO/ TPO erred in law in holding that the fresh comparability analysis using non contemporaneous data conducted by the TPO and further substituting the Appellant's analysis with fresh benchmarking analysis on his own conjectures and surmises. Thus, the Appellant

Csav Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1941/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D. Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92D

impossibility of performance in contravening Section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D(4) of the Rules, which mandate the use of contemporaneous data for the determination of arm's length price ("ALP") of international transactions. 7. On the facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred on facts