ORDER :

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.10.2018 passed by the 1st respondent Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer for the assessment year 2015-16.

2. By the impugned order, it has been concluded that Arm’s Length Price (ALP) towards Corporate Service Fee was considered as “Nil” thereby resulting in a downward adjustment of Rs.5,83,25,839/- towards corporate support service fees.

3. By the impugned order, the 1st respondent has concluded that the petitioner had failed to substantiate receipt of service and demonstrate the economic and commercial benefits on account of the payments made to its associated enterprice.

4. The main contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that despite a precedent on the very same issue for the assessment year 2013-14 vide order dated 14.5.2018 in ITA.No.2977/CHNY/2017, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 30.8.2018 under Section 92 CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the above case in ITA.No.2977/CHNY/2017. It is submitted that the Tribunal vide order dated 14.5.2018 in ITA.No.2977/CHNU/2017 answered the issue in favour of the petitioner with the following observation:-

II. Application of TNMM:

3. The lower authorities have, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in incorrectly computing the operating margin of the appellant and those of the comparable companies selected for benchmarking purposes.

4. The lower authorities have, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in choosing certain comparable companies despite such companies failing the legally required parameter such as, but not limited to, functional dissimilarity, quantitative filters and non-availability of data.

5. The lower authorities have, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in rejecting certain companies selected by the appellant, on incorrect parameters.

6. The lower authorities have, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in not admitting the comparability adjustments considered by the appellant, including but not limited to, adjustment for idle capacity.

7. The lower authorities have, in the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in not considering the supporting information and supplemental analysis regarding to the economic circumstances and market conditions experienced by the appellant; such as to the corroboration of capacity utilization based on manufacturing sector wide information (Reserved Bank of India's Report), the analysis of profits in connection with subsequent years, among others.

8. the lower authorities have, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in disregarding the arm's length analysis prepared by the appellant on the basis of cash profit margins, based on incorrect parameters.

9. the lower authorities have, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in disregarding the financial information and analysis provided by the appellant, including but not limited to the segmented financial information, and the internal TNMM analysis submitted by the appellant.

10. The lower authorities have, in the facts and circumstances, erred in disregarding the relevance of the use of multiple-year data to iron but the differential impact of business cycle between the appellant and the comparable companies.

III. Considering corporate services availed from Aes as 'NIL'

11. The lower authorities have, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in not accepting that the corporate services availed by the appellant are closely linked to the appellant's business and inherent to the centralization of functions that normally occurs within Multinational Groups (such as the case of the Bongfiglioli Group) and have erred in not considering the aggregation approach adopted by the appellant in its TP documentati