IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2374/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2010-11]

Cvent India Pvt Ltd Vs. TheI.T.O

19^th Floor, Tower C & D Ward - 3(4)

Building 14, DLF Cyber City New Delhi Gurgaon PAN – AACCC 7667 F ITA No. 187/DEL/2016 [A.Y. 2011-12]

Cvent India Pvt Ltd Vs. TheA.CI.T. 19^thFloor, Tower C & D Circle -6(2)

Building 14, DLF Cyber City New Delhi Gurgaon PAN – AACCC 7667 F ITA No. 2505/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2010-11]

TheDy.CI.T. Vs. Cvent India Pvt Ltd Circle -7(1) 19^th Floor, Tower C & D New Delhi Building 14, DLF Cyber City Gurgaon PAN – AAACD 6817 F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv.

Shri Prashant Meharchandani &

Shri Jainender Kataria, Adv.

Department By : ShriDheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

The above captioned two separate appeals by the assessee and cross appeal by the Revenue are preferred against orderdated 30.01.2017 of the ld. CIT(A) –38, New Delhi for A.Y 2010-11 and appeal of the assessee against order of ACIT, Cir 6(2), New Delhi dated

30.09.2015 pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 respectively.

2. Since the underlying facts in the captioned cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue are same and were heard together, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO")/ Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and void ab-initio.

2. That the reference made by the Ld. AO suffers from Jurisdictional error as the Ld. AO has not recorded any reasons in the assessment order based on which he reached the conclusion that it was "expedient and necessary" to refer the matter to the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") for computation of the arm's length price, as is required under section

92CA(1).

3. The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/ Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case in determining the arm's length adjustment to the Assessee's international transactions from Associated Enterprises ("AES") and thereby resulting in the enhancement of returned income of the Assessee by INR 19,838,830.

4. The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/ Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in the assessment of the arm's length price of the Assessee's international transactions from associated enterprises in the following manner.

4.1 The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/ Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law to modify, based on his subjective grounds and presumptions, the comparability analysis conducted by the Assessee for determining the arm's length price in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules') as well as fresh search.

4.2 The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/ Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the comparable companies adopted by the Assessee on the basis of additional/ modified quantitative filters selected by the Ld. TPO and arbitrary statements that lacked valid and sufficient reasoning.

4.3 The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/ Ld. CIT(A) has erred by selecting certain companies which were not comparable by way of functions and assets in order to determine the arm's length margin applicable to the Assessee and also erred by rejecting certain companies which were comparable by way of functions and assets in order to determine the arm's length margin applicable to the Assessee.

4.4 The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/ Ld. CIT(A) has erred in incorrectly computing margins of comparable companies.

5. The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/ Ld. CIT(A) erred in re-computing the profit level indicator of the Assessee, by erroneously considering foreign exchange gain/ loss as a non- operating item, even though the same had been considered as operating in prior assessment years.

6. The Ld. TPO erred in computing working capital adjusted margins of comparable companies.

7. The Ld. AO/ L