S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Shown margin of 9.02 per cent as against average margin of final comparables adopted by TPO at 22.69 per cent-High Turnover having brand value to be excluded-Matter remanded to TPO for denovo consideration-Provisions for bad debts as non-operating expenditure only in case of three comparable companies-Foreign exchange loss being not an extra-ordinary item in relevant year to assessee alone and similar loss being incurred by comparable companies, it was not a distinguishing factor to be considered for arriving at ALP.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Allowability of expenditure-TPO has no authority to disallow the expenditure-ALP adjustment cannot be equated with disallowance of expenses. [S. 37(1)]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Companies whose turnover was less than or more than 10 times turnover of assessee could not be considered as comparable companies-Loss making companies in three financial years were to be excluded from list of comparables-Export filter turnover-Substantial expenditure on R &D-Matter remanded-As per retrospective amendment to section 92B w.e.f. 1-4-2002 deferred payment on receivables or any other debt arising during course of business was an international transaction. [S. 92B]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Turnover of more than 200 crores upto 500 crores-Working capital adjustment-Negative working capital adjustment shall not be made in case of a captive service provider as there is no risk and it is compensated on a total cost plus basis.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Software development service-Comparable-Functionally different-Company, engaged in both development of software products as well as services whose segmental data was also not available could not be accepted as valid comparable-Filter-Related party-Providing multiple services like custom software development in addition to cloud computing, application services and mobile technology-providing software development and IT enabled services like hardware designing-Employee cost-Huge revenue from engineering design charges-broadband services and wireless internet-based communication services-Providing cloud consulting, cloud regulations and cloud application development-Software validation and verification services to banking and financial services industry worldwide-Held to be not comparable-Positive net worth-software development and testing services-Valid comparable.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Reimbursement of expenses-Adjustment cannot be made-Comparable-Functional similarity-Providing a platform for sale of electronic products of multiple brands-Cannot be held to be comaparble-Manufacture and trading of consumer electronics, home appliances-Different financial year-Matter remanded. [S. 92B]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Brand value-Company having high brand value and turnover as compared to assessee-company could not be selected as comparable.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Functionally dissimilarity and various other factors such as extraordinary performance etc. cannot be held to be comparable-Segments details are not available matter remanded.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Threshold limit for application of RPT filter cannot be fixed as zero per cent-15% to 25%.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Captive routine software development service provider-A company operating in diversified markets, owning IPRs and brand value and focussing on R&D could not be comparable-Functionally different cannot be comparable-PLI should be worked by considering provision for doubtful debts as operating expenditure.