← 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

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

have conducted a fresh benchmarking analysis using (i) have conducted a fresh benchmarking analysis using (i) inappropriate search fi inappropriate search filters; (ii) non contemporaneous data, lters; (ii) non contemporaneous data, (iii) functionally dissimilar companies as comparables; and (iii) functionally dissimilar companies as comparables; and (iii) functionally dissimilar companies

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

have conducted a fresh benchmarking analysis using (i) have conducted a fresh benchmarking analysis using (i) inappropriate search fi inappropriate search filters; (ii) non contemporaneous data, lters; (ii) non contemporaneous data, (iii) functionally dissimilar companies as comparables; and (iii) functionally dissimilar companies as comparables; and (iii) functionally dissimilar companies

Oocl Logistics (India ). P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7024/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 234DSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

erred in upholding / confirming the action of the TPO of 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 ... erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the TPO of arbitrary selection of comparables, using non-contemporaneous data without conducting an independent search, benchmarking or defining a search strategy in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Arbitrary/Incorrect Rejections/selection of comparables

Airlinq Technology Private Limited (Formerly Known As Globetouch Technologies Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 231/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.231/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Airlinq Technology Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Globe Touch Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Technologies Private Limited) 306, 100 Feet Road, Binna Mangala Stage – 1, Indiranagar Bangalore – 560 038. Pan : Aafcg7626L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, Cas Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Was Incorporated On 15.10.2014 As A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Globetouch Inc, Usa. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Development Services (Swd) To Globetouch Inc. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring An Income Of Rs.4,23,01,510 Under The Normal Provisions Of The Income-Tax Act. The Assessment Was Selected

For Appellant: S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, CAsFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

case and in law, the learned AO/NeAC and the learned TPO erred by rejecting the companies are selected by the Assessee 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

Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 288/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 288/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 143/1, Amani Bellandur Khane Village, The Joint Prestige Excelsior, Commissioner Of Prestige Tech Park, Income-Tax Marathalli – Sarjapur Outer (Osd), Ring Road, Circle 6 (1)(1), Vs. Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaics9204M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi On 30.04.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 92C(3)Section 92D

Panel erred in upholding the order of the Ld. TPO/ NeAC , wherein the Learned TPO conducted a fresh comparability/ benchmarking analysis using "non- contemporaneous" data and substituted the Appellant's analysis with the fresh benchmarking analysis on her own conjectures and surmises. Therefore, the Appellant prays that the fresh benchmarking ... Panel erred in upholding the order of the Ld. TPO/ NeAC wherein the Ld. TPO disregarded the fact of non-availability of contemporaneous data in public domain at the time of preparation of transfer pricing study by the Appellant. Further, the Ld. TPO also disregarded the comparable companies arrived

ACIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley Advantage Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 1215/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

International Ltd is concerned, the only reason for exclusion is it has a different financial year ending. The departmental authorities have not examined whether contemporaneous data of the company relating to the financial year corresponding to the financial year of the assessee is available or not. In the aforesaid factual

Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd. As Successor of Rohm and Haas (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7936/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dow Chemical International Private Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Limited As Successor Of Rohm & Hass Room No. 458, 4Th Floor, (India) Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Godrej It Park-P2, 1St Floor Block B, 02, Mumbai-400020. Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan No. Aaacr 2855 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan R. Vora/For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 92C

various indices/markets as reported in ICIS data fluctuate on hourly basis and therefore the assessee’s attempts to benchmark the transactions with non-contemporaneous data, vitiates the whole benchmarking process. He also noticed that the data published by the ICIS is based on number of assumptions and presumption and actual

Credit Suisse Consulting (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

619/Mum/2014

ITA 619/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

India) Pvt. Ltd., 12.95% as per the Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR). Later, the assessee furnished the updated margin of the comparables companies using contemporaneous data and worked out the revised comparable mean margin at 21.51%. The assessee accordingly, stated that its transactions are at arm’s length

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3089/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner Of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax, Begur Hobli, Circle – 7 (1)(2), Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in disregarding multiple year data and they ought to have accepted the use of contemporaneous data due to non- availability of current year data in the public domain at the time of preparing the documentation. 6. The learned AO/ learned ... learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in disregarding multiple year data and they ought to have accepted the use of contemporaneous data due to non- availability of current year data in the public domain at the time of preparing the documentation. 6. The learned AO/ learned

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3088/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner Of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax, Begur Hobli, Circle – 7 (1)(2), Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 92C

learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in disregarding multiple year data and they ought to have accepted the use of contemporaneous data due to non- availability of current year data in the public domain at the time of preparing the documentation. 6. The learned AO/ learned ... learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in disregarding multiple year data and they ought to have accepted the use of contemporaneous data due to non- availability of current year data in the public domain at the time of preparing the documentation. 6. The learned AO/ learned

Morgan Stanley Solutions India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 626/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemorgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Circle – 9(2) {Successor To Morgan Stanley Solutions Room No. 261, 2Nd Floor India Pvt. Ltd.,} Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Antena Building No.5 Mumbai - 400020 Sector 30, Mindspace, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400090 Pan: Aadcm7403M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tajendra Pal SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Sunil M. Lala
Section 144C(5)Section 234D

Year (FY) 2008-2009 which was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying with the TP documentation requirements Le. using non-contemporaneous data for calculating the ALP of the international transaction; 2.5. In rejecting the comparable companies selected by the Appellant in the TP report, without providing

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

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 at the time of preparing the documentation. 5.2 That the learned ... rule 10 B (2). We also are of opinion that comparables selected must be for relevant year which is to be 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

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

considering the financial data of the comparable companies for the FY 2007-08 in the testing services segment thereby being consistent in application of contemporaneous data filter. 8. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in selecting companies having significant related party transactions in the testing ... that the said concern has different financial year than the one of assessee. The Assessing Officer had applied the current year data as contemporaneous data to be used for benchmarking the arm's length price of international transactions of assessee. The assessee had prepared its financial statements for the financial

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

considering the financial data of the comparable companies for the FY 2007-08 in the testing services segment thereby being consistent in application of contemporaneous data filter. 8. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in selecting companies having significant related party transactions in the testing ... that the said concern has different financial year than the one of assessee. The Assessing Officer had applied the current year data as contemporaneous data to be used for benchmarking the arm's length price of international transactions of assessee. The assessee had prepared its financial statements for the financial

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

considering the financial data of the comparable companies for the FY 2007-08 in the testing services segment thereby being consistent in application of contemporaneous data filter. 8. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in selecting companies having significant related party transactions in the testing ... that the said concern has different financial year than the one of assessee. The Assessing Officer had applied the current year data as contemporaneous data to be used for benchmarking the arm's length price of international transactions of assessee. The assessee had prepared its financial statements for the financial

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Citicorp Finance (I) Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4608/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmandy.Cit, Circle-14(1)(2), M/S. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd., बनाम Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Vs First International Financial Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 8Th Floor, Plot Nos. C-54 & C-55, Mumbai-400020 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं/.Pan /Tan No: Aabca3223B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Madhur Agrawal Respondent By : Sh. Senthil Kumaran

For Appellant: Sh. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Sh. Senthil Kumaran

argued that Market Research and Management services were not identical or comparable to Investment Advisory Services. Apart from that, it has been submitted that contemporaneous data was not relied upon. 22.2 Addressing the objections pose d on the grounds of RPT/Sales Filter it is seen that the Annual Report ... before the Court. The dismissal of departmental appeal fully clinches the issue in favour of the assessee. 22.6 The allegation that the contemporaneous data has not been relied upon, we have seen, is not borne out from the record. Accordingly, we find that on this ground too, the Revenue fails

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)

year of operations. c. Rejections of comparable companies selected by the assessee in the transfer pricing study, which intera/ia are 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 ... which are not comparable to the Appellant, inter-a/iadue to functional incomparability, super normal profits and 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

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dunnhumby It Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2815/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 92C

order. This comparable has been rejected due to having different year ending and non- availability of audited data on quarterly basis. As discussed, neither contemporaneous data nor audited quarterly data was available which could enable the TPO to compute PLI. The CIT(A) has discussed this issue at page

Dunnhumby It Services India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2423/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 92C

order. This comparable has been rejected due to having different year ending and non- availability of audited data on quarterly basis. As discussed, neither contemporaneous data nor audited quarterly data was available which could enable the TPO to compute PLI. The CIT(A) has discussed this issue at page