S. 143(2) : Assessment-Notice-Non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is a jurisdictional defect and cannot be cured by section 292BB-Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 147, 148, 292BB]

S. 92CA : Reference to transfer pricing officer-Additional ground-Limitation-Time-limit specified under section 92CA(3A) is mandatory-TPO is bound by time-limit for passing of order under section 92CA (3), failing which the order is invalid. [S. 92CA(3A), 254(1)]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Provision of software consultancy services-Adjustment to be restricted to amount retained by associated enterprise. [S. 92CA(3)]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparables-Functionally dissimilar companies cannot be taken as comparable–Government owned company taken as comparable on ground of functional similarity-Low turnover for particular year cannot be ground to exclude company functionally similar-Matter remanded.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Business support services-No finding that services not rendered-Directed to benchmark transactions adopting Transactional Net Margin Method-Held to be proper.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Reclassifying from a marketing and sales service provider to technical and business service provider-Held to be not proper-Matter remanded [S.92CA]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Since working capital adjusted margin of assessee had already been factored in delay in receivables, and further assessee was not charging interest on overdue debts from third parties, and was also not paying any interest to creditors, no adjustment was further warranted-When the TPO could not controvert the independent reports of valuation furnished by the Assessee and followed no prescribed method of determining ALP, yet made additions, the same was termed untenable-With primary adjustment being rejected, consequent secondary adjustment fails too-If an Indian entity has satisfied the TNMM i.e., the operating margins of the Indian enterprise are much higher than the operating margins of the comparable companies, no further separate adjustment for Royalty expenditure is warranted.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Software Development Services (SWD)-If a company is involved in more than one segment and no segmental information is made available then such a company cannot be taken as a comparable-If a company is engaged in a diverse range of IT Solution Services and it was not a full-fledged software development company then it should be excluded from comparability analysis for a software development service provider-If activities of selected company comprised of high-end hardware and software product and development activities, which differed from routine SWD activities, it should not be selected as comparable-If turnover of selected company was far higher than turnover of assessee and the said company was giant in software development and also had high brand value as compared to assessee, it should be excluded from comparable list-If selected company was engaged in rendering outsourced product development as against software development services, it was not comparable to assessee-ITes-If selected company was not only a provider of high-end services but was also engaged in development of software products for healthcare segment, and further owned significant intangibles, it should be excluded from comparable list-If selected company enjoyed huge brand value and had also made significant investments in creating intangibles and owned several intellectual properties as compared to assessee, it could not be selected as comparable. [S. 92CA]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Turnover-When the AO had applied lower turnover filter of Rs. 1 crore and rejected companies with turnover less than Rs. 1 crore from list of comparable companies, he ought to have excluded companies with high turnover from list of comparable companies, i.e., companies having turnover of Rs. 200 crores and above as well. [S.92CA]

S. 92BA : Transfer pricing-Specified domestic transactions-Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer after provision omitted-Not valid-Assessing Officer to examine claim of expenditure in terms of Section 40A(2)-Trade credits-Matter remanded. [S. 40A(2), 68]