IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

I.T.A. No. 6986/Mum/2011 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Franklin Templeton Vs. Assistant International Services Commissioner of (India) Private Limited Income-tax (OSD), Level 3, Wockhardt Circle 3(1)

Towers, Bandra Kurla Room No. 609, 6^th Complex, Bandra (East), Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400051 Bhavan, M K Marg, PAN:AAACF6496L Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

I.T.A. No. 7216/Mum/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Franklin Templeton Vs. Deputy International Services Commissioner of (India) Private Limited Income-tax (OSD), Indiabulls Finance Centre, Circle 3(1)

Tower 2, 13^th Floor, Room No. 607, 6^th Senapati Bapat Marg, Floor, Aayakar Elphinstone (West) Bhavan, M K Marg, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400020 PAN:AAACF6496L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Anish Thacker & Pranay Gandhi Respondent by Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan, CIT D.R.

Services (India) Private Limited Date of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.:

The Present appeals filed by the assessee arises out of final assessment order dated 21/09/2011 and 27/09/2012 passed by Ld.ACIT-Circle-3(1), Mumbai, for assessment years 2007-08 and

2008-09 respectively, on following grounds of appeal:

Assessment year 2007-08 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP") erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') and the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') of making an addition to the Appellant's total income of Rs. 9,49,81,245 based on the provisions of Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').

2. The TPO/AO/DRP approached the entire issue with a prejudiced mindset with an intention of making an adjustment and the same is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The Hon'ble DRP erred on facts and in law in confirming the approach adopted by the learned AO/TPO, who disregarded the various submissions made by the Appellant without assigning any cogent reasons therefor and also rejected the benchmarking analysis and comparable companies selected by the Appellant without appreciating the fact that such selection was based on the contemporaneous data and the transfer pricing study report prepared and maintained as per section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules').

4. The Hon'ble DRP erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the learned TPO of conducting a fresh benchmarking analysis using non contemporaneous data and substituting the Appellant's analysis with Services (India) Private Limited fresh benchmarking analysis on his own conjectures and surmises. Thus the Appellant prays that the fresh benchmarking analysis conducted by the learned TPO is liable to be quashed.

5. The Hon'ble DRP erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the learned TPO for applying an arbitrarily prepared standard set of comparable companies for Information Technology enabled services ('ITeS') and Information Technology services ('IT') to determine the arm's length nature of the international transactions of the Appellant without taking into consideration the differences in the functions performed, assets employed and risks undertaken between the Appellant and the set of comparables considered by the TPO and without finding any deficiencies in the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the appellant, 6. The Hon'ble DRP erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the learned TPO of using data obtained using powers available under section 133(6) which was not shared with the Appellant, and which, based on the principle of 'impossibility of performance', the Appellant could not possibly have access to as the same was not available in public domain.”

Assessment year 2008-09 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Transfer Pricing