https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784926 No justification was found for alleged functional dissimilarity between selected comparables and the assessee; comparability required Functions, Assets & Risk analysis which was not undertaken, and mechanical reliance on coordinate-bench decisions was rejected, resulting in nonconformity with law. Three high-turnover companies submitted as comparables were directed to be excluded from comparability analysis for lack of parity with the assessees turnover. One comparable (Harton Communications Ltd.) is to be investigated and verified for comparability and the matter remitted to the lower authority for fresh findings where the appellate authority failed to address the assessees objections. Appeal partly allowed. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jan 2026 08:56:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784926 No justification was found for alleged functional dissimilarity between selected comparables and the assessee; comparability required Functions, Assets & Risk analysis which was not undertaken, and mechanical reliance on coordinate-bench decisions was rejected, resulting in nonconformity with law. Three high-turnover companies submitted as comparables were directed to be excluded from comparability analysis for lack of parity with the assessees turnover. One comparable (Harton Communications Ltd.) is to be investigated and verified for comparability and the matter remitted to the lower authority for fresh findings where the appellate authority failed to address the assessees objections. Appeal partly allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784926