S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arms’ length price-Comparable-leading company without segmental information cannot be accepted as a comparable.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Assessee engaged in software development services, comparable engaged in wide variety of services-Not comparable without segmental analysis. TPO bound by the directions of the DRP. [S. 92CA, 144C]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Management fee-TPO did not resort to transfer pricing exercise adjustment-Addition was to be deleted. [S. 92C(1)]

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comaprable-Cannot be comparable with business support services-Functionally dissimilar cannot be comparable-Abnormal growth due to restricting cannot be cpmparable-Company had outsourced services to third party vendors cannot be held to be comparable.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Capacity utilization adjustment-allowed as the assessee is in the initial years of operation-Matter remanded0 Treatment of depreciation as operating expense-Depreciation held as operating expense for R&D segment considering interlink with manufacturing segment.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Functionally similar it could not be excluded-TPO applied RPT filter of 25 per cent in case of assessee company, comparable company having RPT of more than 50 per cent could not be accepted as valid comparable-Working capital adjustment is allowed.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Cup method-e-mails correspondence is considered as evidence.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Resale price method-Trading of telecom network equipments-Selling without any value addition-TPO applied TNM method-Order of TPO was set aside.

S. 92C : Transfer Pricing-if a company was otherwise functionally similar-it could not be excluded only on ground of having a different financial year ending.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arms’ length price-Functionally dissimilar companies cannot be taken as comparable.