https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219939 The ITAT Bangalore upheld the TPO's upward transfer pricing adjustment against the Indian assessee providing call centre services to its AE in the USA. The Tribunal confirmed the mandatory use of current year data for comparability analysis under Rule 10B, rejecting the assessee's reliance on prior year data. It held that contemporaneous data used by the TPO, even if unavailable to the assessee at the time of documentation, was valid. The +/- 5% safe harbour margin was disallowed as it applies only to justify prices, not adjustments. The TPO's rejection of the assessee's transfer pricing study was upheld due to non-compliance with prescribed rules. The Tribunal directed exclusion of comparables with significant related party transactions, unique intangibles, or functional dissimilarity. Arguments based on parent company losses and tax avoidance were rejected. Certain comparables were excluded or included based on turnover, business model, and functional comparability. The depreciation adjustment claim was remitted for fresh consideration. en-us Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Aug 2025 16:40:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219939 The ITAT Bangalore upheld the TPO's upward transfer pricing adjustment against the Indian assessee providing call centre services to its AE in the USA. The Tribunal confirmed the mandatory use of current year data for comparability analysis under Rule 10B, rejecting the assessee's reliance on prior year data. It held that contemporaneous data used by the TPO, even if unavailable to the assessee at the time of documentation, was valid. The +/- 5% safe harbour margin was disallowed as it applies only to justify prices, not adjustments. The TPO's rejection of the assessee's transfer pricing study was upheld due to non-compliance with prescribed rules. The Tribunal directed exclusion of comparables with significant related party transactions, unique intangibles, or functional dissimilarity. Arguments based on parent company losses and tax avoidance were rejected. Certain comparables were excluded or included based on turnover, business model, and functional comparability. The depreciation adjustment claim was remitted for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219939