https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192950 The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order by reinstating three comparables and rejecting one comparable. The AO/TPO were directed to re-compute the arm's length price by excluding eight comparables for the relevant assessment year, considering the assessee's profile as an ITES provider. The appeals of both the assessee and revenue for certain assessment years were partly allowed, and the appeal for another assessment year was partly allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jul 2017 10:45:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192950 The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order by reinstating three comparables and rejecting one comparable. The AO/TPO were directed to re-compute the arm's length price by excluding eight comparables for the relevant assessment year, considering the assessee's profile as an ITES provider. The appeals of both the assessee and revenue for certain assessment years were partly allowed, and the appeal for another assessment year was partly allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192950