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.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Rule 10B permits to aggregate comparable uncontrolled transactions for determining ALP, however, it does not permit to aggregate international transactions carried out by assessee to work out average price for purpose of comparison-Once comparable company becomes AE of assessee in year under consideration, then such company cannot be considered as comparable. [S. 92A(2), R.10B]