2026 (10) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] impugning an order dated 02.06.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in IT(TP)A No.1681/Bang/2024 for the Assessment Year [AY] 2020-21. 3. The respondent [assessee] had filed its return of income tax for the AY 2020-21 on 05.02.2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 5,00,90,640/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny. Since the assessee had also entered into an international transaction, the Assessing Officer [AO] made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO]. The learned TPO passed an order dated 08.02.2023 under Section 92CA(3) of the Act making Transfer Pricing Adjustments of Rs. 16,05,36,917/-. The said adjus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut of the 17 comparables selected by the TPO were: (i) Mindtree Limited; (ii) Great Software Laboratory Limited; (iii) Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited; (iv) Wipro Limited; (v) Nihilient Limited; (vi) Tata Elxis Limited; (vii) Infosys Limited; (viii) Tata Consultancy Services Limited; and (ix) Cybage Software Limited 5. The Revenue has filed the present appeal assailing the said order and projecting the following questions for consideration: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in excluding certain comparables by introducing new comparability criteria at the appellate stage, when such criteria were ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entation? 6. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in it's selective acceptance of new comparability factors at the appellate stage, without requiring complete disclosure and analysis under Rule 10D, is legally sustainable as per Section 92D read with Rule 10D and determination of arm's length price as per Section 92C(3)? 7. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in excluding certain comparables on the ground of high turnover, while simultaneously retaining the company having higher turnover than the taxpayer and as such the inconsistent application of the turnover filter renders the finding of the Tribunal perverse? ....