S. 92CA : Reference to transfer pricing officer-There was no transfer pricing adjustment of more than 10 crores in earlier year-Assessing Officers reference to TPO was in contravention to Instruction No. 3 of 2016 and such reference was to be declared as invalid. [S. 92C]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-company engaged in the business of investment banking, merchant banking, merger and acquisition, private equity, syndication, etc. cannot be compared to non-binding investment advisory service provider.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-A company engaged in distribution of software product could be accepted as valid comparable.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-TNMM method-constantly accepted to be Most Appropriate Method-TNMM would be appropriate methodology-Corporate guarantee-Spread rate would be applied to gross amount of guarantee, and not on actual loan availed by AE.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Volume difference in transaction values, funding issues, environmental issues, geographical location of clients and alleged differences in FAR without specifying same were held not grounds to reject CPM method and adopt TNMM method in oil and gas sector-Appellate Tribunal-Period of 90 days for pronouncement of orders after date of hearing is to be computed by excluding period during which nationwide COVID 19 pandemic lockdown was in force. [S. 255, ITAT R. 34]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable- Development of software products, was to be excluded from list of comparables-Bigger sized company having large turnover was to be excluded from the list of comaparbles.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Turnover-Companies having higher turnover can be held to be comparable Risk management-TPO was to be directed to re-compute risk adjustment in accordance with law-A company rendering software development services and licensing and earning royalty of software products cannot be held to be comparable in absence of segmental details-A company engaged in diverse field of activities of software development could not be regarded as functionally comparable with assessee-A company had undergone acquisition which was an extraordinary event that would impact profits for year under consideration, this company could not be considered as comparable-Comparable companies available in public domain was insufficient assessee cannot be required to produce the evidence, the revenue can compel production of required details from comparable companies by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act. [S. 133(6)]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Guarantee commission was to be charged at rate of 0.50 per cent in respect of corporate guarantee-Interest-Commercial expediency of loan is wholly irrelevant in ascertaining ALP of interest on said loan advanced to AE.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparison-Data should be of same financial year-Delay of 47 days in filing appeal by the revenue was condoned. [S. 253]

S. 92B : Transfer pricing-Corporate guarantee-No material to prove cost in providing corporate guarantee-Addition is held to be not valid-Finance Act, 2012, amendment is prospective. [S. 92C]