IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

I.T.A. No.5918/Mum/2024 (Assessment year 2014-15)

HERE Solutions India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-

11 Floor, B Wing, Nesco IT Park tax, Circle 10(1)(1), Mumbai Tower 4, Western Express Highway Room No.209, Aayakar Bhavan Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AACCN7231R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Ketan Ved Department represented by Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR)

Date of hearing 01-05-2025 Date of pronouncement 08-05-2025

O R D E R

PER: ANIKESH BANERJEE (JM):

Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai *for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’+ passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2014-15, date of order 19/09/2024. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 10(1)(1), Mumbai (for brevity the “Ld. AO”), passed under section 143(3)

read with section 144C(3) of the Act, date of order 19/01/2018. 2. The assessee has taken the following ground of appeal: -

“The grounds hereinafter taken by the Appellant are without prejudice to one another:

1:0 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai (the 'AO') erred in making an addition of Rs. 13,10,59,610 to the total income and assessing the total income of the Appellant for the captioned AY at Rs. 25,37,46,510.

Transfer pricing issues:

2:0 Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs. 10,14,93,918 in relation to the international transaction of receipt from production services ['ITeS services'):

2:1 The AO/Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (the 'TPO') / Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [the 'CIT (A)] have erred on the facts of the case and in law in making an upward adjustment of Rs. 10,14,93,918 to the total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transaction relating to ITeS services provided by the Appellant to its associated enterprises ('AEs') is not at arm's length.

2:2 The learned AO/TPO/CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in disregarding the benchmarking analysis conducted by the Appellant based on the contemporaneous data in the Transfer pricing study report ('TP Study Report') maintained as per Section 92D of the Income Act 1962 (the 'Act') read with Rule

10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules').

2:3 The AO/ΤΡΟ / CIT (A) have erred in rejecting the economic analysis and methodical search process undertaken by the Appellant to identify comparable companies providing services similar to the ITeS services rendered by the Appellant.

2:4 The AO/TPO / CIT (A) has determined the arm's length price of the Appellant's international transactions without undertaking any scientific search process in violation of sections 92C(1) and 92C(2) and resorting to cherry picking of comparable companies.

2:5 The ΑΟ/ΤΡΟ / CIT (A) erred in law and in facts of the case in applying inappropriate qualitative and quantitative criteria for accepting/rejecting companies.

2:6 The AO/TPO/CIT (A) erred in applying an inappropriate filter of including companies having export earnings less than 75% of total turnover.

2:7 The AO/ TPO/ CIT (A) has resorted to the use of single year data of the alleged comparable companies instead of multiple year data, as permissible under Rule

10B(4) of the Rules.

2:8 The AO/TPO/CIT (A) have erred in rejecting companies having different FY ending or whose data does not fall within the 12 month period of 1 April 2013 to

31 March 2014.

2:9 The AO/ TPO/ CIT (A) erred in incorrect application of filter for related party transactions.

2:10 The AO/ TPO/ CIT (A) erred in disregarding the contention of the Appellant to undertake economic adjustments for working capital and market risk.

2:11 The AO/ TPO / CIT (A) have erred