IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIYOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No.3742/Del/2015 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Assessee by Shri Tarandeep Singh, CA &

Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue by Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR सुनवाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 23.12.2025 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 07.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1. This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), dated 10.03.2015, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-44, New Delhi. In this case, evidently, there are broadly two issues for adjudication which have been continuing controversies over the past several assessment years. The assessee is a domestic company and is in the business of supplying equipment and products related to material analysis. The assessee also provides installation and commissioning services, followed by after sales services, to its clients. The first issue pertains to the aspect of segregation of services and goods provided by the assessee in terms of providing AMC Services and secondly, providing Agency & Marketing Support Service. The Ld. AO/TPO have treated these two segments as part of the broad umbrella of services provided by the assessee and have treated them as one for the purposes of working out Arm’s Length Price (ALP). The second issue pertains to the treatment given to non-compete fees which has been held to be capital in nature and also the depreciation amounting to Rs.3,75,831/- being disallowed on the same.

1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of Ld. AO after following earlier years orders of Ld. CIT(A)s.

1.2 The assessee has approached the ITAT for the present year with the following grounds: -

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) New Delhi (“Hon’ble CIT(A)”) is bad in law.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of INR 2,87,42,095/- to the returned income of the Appellant made by the Ld. AO / TPO by re-computing the arm’s length price of the international transactions under section 92 of the Act.

3. Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in facts and in law by upholding the rejection of the transfer pricing methodology adopted by the Appellant in its transfer pricing report and in allowing the unjustified approach of the Ld. TPO by :

3.1 Disregarding the segmental analysis carried out by the Appellant in its transfer pricing documentation and instead, considering entity wide approach by treating Indenting / Marketing support segment and Trading of spare parts (AMC) segment as single business segment.

3.2 Rejecting the Resale Price Method adopted by the Appellant and instead adopting Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions under Trading of spare parts (AMC) segment.

3.3 Not accepting comparable companies selected by the Appellant in its TP documentation even when such companies were functionally comparable to the Appellant;

3.4 Conducting a fresh search for companies by not accepting the quantitative filters selected by the Appellant in its transfer pricing documentation and instead applying his own additional /

quantitative filters which lacked valid and sufficient reasoning.

3.5Selecting inappropriate comparable set in application of the transfer pricingmethodology adopted by him.

4. Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in facts and in law by not providing the benefit of economic adjustment on account of difference in working capital in arriving at the arm’s length mean margin under TNMM.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in making a disallowance of Rs.3,75,831/- on account of depreciation on Non-

Compete Fee.

5.1 The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred