IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Amazon Development Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant / Deputy No. 26/1, 10^th Floor, Commissioner of Income World Trade Centre, Tax, Brigade Gateway, Circle – 1(1)(1), Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore. Vs.

Malleswaram (W), Bengaluru – 560 055.

PAN: AAECA7705P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Assessee by : Ms. Deepashree Rao &

Ms. Aditi Garg, CA Revenue by : Dr. Divya K.J, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27-01-2026

ORDER

PER PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These appeals are filed by the revenue against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) dated 04.09.2024 for A.Ys. 2012-13 and dated 07.08.2024 for 2013-14.

ITA Nos. 2127/Bang/2024

2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing software development services and information technology enabled services i.e. ITeS comprising of customer and seller support services, transaction, risk management services and other back office support services to its Associated Enterprises (AE). The assessee filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 30/11/2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,18,95,75,690/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and a statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The assessing officer made a reference to the transfer pricing officer to determine the arms length price of the transactions that the assessee is having with its AE. The TPO made an adjustment in the ALP to the tune of Rs. 22,18,05,726/-. On further appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by allowing the inclusions / exclusions of various comparables as sought by the assessee.

3. The revenue is in appeal against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) raising the following grounds of appeal –

“1) Whether the CIT (A) is right in adopting an overly narrow interpretation of functional similarity by excluding companies that are reasonably comparable in terms of primary business functions. It is a well-established principle in transfer pricing that the comparables should reflect similar core business functions, even if there are minor variations or ancillary services.

2) Whether CIT(A) is right in exclusion of comparables such as Universal Print Systems Limited, Infosys BPO Limited, Excel Infoways Limited on the grounds of functional dissimilarity, when on adequately considering the fact that these companies' core operations involve ITeS, which is the primary• function of the assessee.

3) Whether the CIT (A) is right in excluding comparables like Universal Print Systems Limited, Infosys BPO Limited, Excel Infoways Limited on the basis of functional dissimilarity, despite- their primary business activities being comparable to the IT-enabled services (ITeS)

provided by the assessee.

4) Whether the CIT(A) is right in demanding comparability standards that may itself defeat the purpose of law relating to determination of ALP under the income tax Act.

5) Whether the CIT(A) correct in imposing conditions is beyond the scope of law and business reality by rejecting all close comparables on one or the other ground, without appreciating that not two companies can ever be same.

6) Whether the CIT(A) is right in trying to find out exact replica of the assessee for determining the Arm's length price based on such replica, even when the law and the international jurisprudence itself recognize that there cannot be an exact comparable to a given situation, especially with TNMM as the most appropriate method.

7) Whether the CIT(A) is right in not following the decision of ITAT, Bangalore rendered in the case of M/s Societe Generale Global Solution Centre Pvt Ltd. in IT (TP) A No. 1188/BANG/2011 and M/s. Vmoksha Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in IT (TP) A No. 595/BANG/2013 dated 26.08.20