Factual verification is required for double-taxed forex reversals, and market research firms qualify as support service comparables.

By | May 27, 2026
0 Comment

Factual verification is required for double-taxed forex reversals, and market research firms qualify as support service comparables.

Issue

  • Whether the additional ground raised regarding double-taxation of a reversed forex loss provision requires fresh factual verification by the Assessing Officer when dismissed by lower authorities for want of evidence.

  • Whether Cyber Media Research Ltd., a company primarily engaged in market research and management consultancy services, can be included as a valid comparable for an assessee providing local logistics and freight forwarding support services under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).

Facts

  • The assessee-company is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Singapore-based group company and is engaged in providing local logistics and freight forwarding support services.

  • For the Assessment Year 2012-13, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a financial loss.

  • Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee raised an additional ground claiming that an amount representing the reversal of a provision for forex loss had been inadvertently offered to tax twice.

  • The assessee contended that a revised computation was filed before the Assessing Officer and that they had withdrawn the corresponding claim in the subsequent Assessment Year (2013-14) to avoid double benefit.

  • The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed this additional ground solely because the assessee failed to provide sufficient supporting evidence at that stage.

  • For its international transactions, the assessee conducted a Transfer Pricing study using TNMM and selected Cyber Media Research Ltd. as a comparable company.

  • The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected this comparable and proposed an upward adjustment, but the Commissioner (Appeals) directed its inclusion subject to verifying the Related Party Transaction (RPT) filter.

Decision

  • Forex Issue Remanded for Verification: The Tribunal held that since the assessee’s claim of double taxation on the forex loss reversal requires detailed factual verification, the issue must be restored back to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the facts and pass a fresh order.

  • Comparable Inclusion Upheld: The Tribunal ruled that Cyber Media Research Ltd. is primarily engaged in market research and management consultancy services which are functional support services.

  • Precedents Followed: Pointing to similar past cases, the Tribunal noted it had previously held this specific company to be a support service provider, thereby ordering its permanent inclusion in the final list of comparables.

Key Takeaways

  • Remand for Factual Errors: If a taxpayer inadvertently double-reports an income item or errs in their initial tax filing, appellate authorities will remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification rather than dismissing it permanently on hyper-technical grounds.

  • Broad Definition of Support Services: Under Transfer Pricing analysis, companies performing specialized data, market research, or consultancy roles can be benchmarked against logistics or freight support providers, provided their core economic character remains that of a “support service.”

  • RPT Filter Guardrails: Even when a comparable is found to be functionally similar by a court, its final inclusion remains subject to numeric filters like the Related Party Transaction threshold to ensure data reliability.

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ‘K’
ACIT
v.
APL Logistics (India) (P.) Ltd.*
Pawan Singh, Judicial Member
and Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member
IT Appeal Nos. 5008 & 5304 (MUM) of 2025
C.O. No. 14 (MUM) of 2026
[Assessment year 2012-13]
MAY  20, 2026
Nikhil Tiwari, CA for the Applicant. Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr-DR for the Respondent.
ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT
Pawan Singh, Judicial Member.- These cross appeal by revenue as well as assessee and cross-objection therein by assessee are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-55, Mumbai dated 19.06.2025for A.Y. 2012-13. The revenue in this appeal has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)erred in directing the exclusion of the functionally comparable company Apitco Limited only for the reason on account of government ownership, without demonstrating whether government ownership led to the company receiving any (i) grants (i) subsidies or that it was subject to any pricing controls or any preferential treatment vis-a-vis other privately owned companies?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the exclusion of the functionally comparable company BVG India Ltd holding it to be functionally dissimilar?
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directingthe inclusion of the comparable company Cyber Media Research Ltd, although the said company is engaged in market research & is thus, functionally dissimilar?”
2. The assessee in its cross appeal has raised following grounds of appeal:
“On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/ CIT(A) has:
1. erred in law and on facts in assessing the total loss at Rs. 23,85,368 as per computation of income filed by the Assessee against a loss of Rs. 4,35,29,880 without appreciating that inadvertently an amount of Rs. 4,11,44,512 representing reversal of provision of forex loss was offered twice by the Appellant in the computation of income filed for AY 2012-13.
2. erred in not appreciating that the Appellant in its computation of income had offered to tax reversal of provision for forex loss amounting to Rs. 5,30,20,360/-which included an amount of INR 4,11,44,512/- which was inadvertently again offered in the computation of income for AY 2012-13 i.e. the said amount to the extent of INR 4,11,44,512/- had been inadvertently added back twice to the total income of the Appellant for AY 2012-13.
3. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act
It is humbly prayed that the reliefs as prayed for hereinabove and/or such other reliefs as may be justified by the facts and circumstances of the case and as may meet the ends of justice should be granted.
Each of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to and independent of one another.”
3. The assessee in its cross objection has raised following grounds of appeal:
“Incorrect exclusion of Government owned companies on a without prejudice basis considering ground taken by the Ld. AO stands to be upheld:
1. erred in rejecting EDCIL (India) Ltd and India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd, both selected by the Respondent as comparable companies to benchmark its international transaction of provision of logistic support services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs), on the basis that these companies are government-owned and functionally not comparable to the Respondent without appreciating that both companies are engaged in the provision of support services and are therefore comparable to the Respondent.
Incorrect rejection of comparable engaged in provision of support services
2. erred in rejecting In-House Productions Limited selected by the Respondent as a comparable company, to benchmark its international transaction of provision of logistic support services to its AEs, on the basis that the company provides design and distribution services for print and online media, as well as medical transcription activities similar to ITES, without appreciating that the Healthcare segment selected by the Respondent provides knowledge management solutions and information services tailored to the healthcare sector, and business process outsourcing, making it functionally comparable to the Respondent.
3. erred in rejecting ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited selected by the Respondent as a comparable company, to benchmark its international transaction of provision of logistic support services to its AEs, on the basis that the company is not functionally comparable to the Respondent, without appreciating that services provided by the company are in the nature of support services and hence the company is comparable to the Respondent.
4. erred in considering Killick Agencies & Marketing Limited in the final set of comparable companies without appreciating that the said company is functionally dissimilar to the respondent, lacks appropriate segmental information, and is also engaged in trading of products which are not akin to provision of support services.
5. erred in considering AXIS Integrated Systems Limited in the final set of comparable companies without appreciating that the company is functionally dissimilar to the Respondent and is engaged in the business of trading of digital certificate, providing high end technical services which are not akin to provision of support services.
6. erred in considering Marketing Consultants & Agencies Limited in the final set of comparable companies without appreciating that the company is a Government company and functionally dissimilar to the respondent.”
4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee-company is a wholly owned subsidiary of APL Logistics Limited, Singapore (APPL Singapore), which is a part of Neptune Orient Lines Group. The assessee-company is engaged in providing local logistics and freight forwarding support services in India including cargo consolidation services, international freight forwarding services, warehousing management services and other local logistic support services. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 29.11.2012 which was revised on 31.03.2014 declaring loss.The assessee while filing return of income reported certain international transaction with its associated enterprises (AE). Consequent upon, the assessing officer (AO) made a reference to transfer pricing officer (TPO) for computation of arm’s length price in respect ofinternational transaction. The TPO suggested the upward adjustment of Rs. 7.30 crore vide its order dated 29.01.2016. On receipt of report of TPO, the AO passed the draft assessment order dated 31.03.2016. Copy of draft assessment was served upon the assessee. The assessee intimated the assessing officer for filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) instead of filing objection of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Accordingly, the order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) dated 22.04.2016 was passed.
5. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed statement of fact as well as written submission in support of its transfer pricing study report to justify its transaction with its AE at Arm’s length. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that assessee has benchmark its international transaction relating to provision of Logistic Support Services in its transfer pricing study report (TPSR) and adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method for benchmarking its transactions. The assessee made payment of Rs. 104.78 Crore to its AE for rendering various services. The assessee claimed that they have entered into International Freight Services (IFS) agreement and consolidation services agreement on 01.01.2009 with Singapore based AE. The details of services are defined in Schedule-attached with agreement. The assessee is compensated on cost plus 5.00% of operating cost from provision of Logistic Support Services to its AE. The assessee carried out an economic analysis and determined margin of comparable at 7.60%. The assesses margin was within the +/- 5.00% range as per proviso to section 92C(2) and claimed its transactions at arm’s length. The assessee selected following comparable and their arithmetic mean margin was (-) 3.20% in the following manner:
Sl. No. Name of the company Margin (OP/OC)
1 Cyber Media Research Limited (-) 30.51%
2 EDCIL (India) Ltd. 0.70°%
3 In House Productions Limited (-) 1.96%
4 India Tourism Development Corporation Limited (-) 7.25°%
5 ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited 7.18%o
6 Priya International Limited 12.67°%
Arithmetic Mean (-) 3.20%

 

6. The TPO issued show cause notice and proposing to reject all six comparable selected by assessee on the ground that they are not comparable and proposed five (5) new comparable in the following manner:
Sl. No. Name of the company Margin (OP/OC)
1 Aptco Limited 24.45%
2 AXIS Integrated Systems Limited 9.03/
3 BVGIndia Limited 24.21/
4 Killick Agencies & Marketing Limited 10.27/
5 Marketing and Consultant & Agencies Limited 10.32/
Arithmetic Mean 15.66%

 

7. In response to show cause notice, the assessee filed detailed reply as to why the comparables selected by assessee should not be rejected and proposed comparables selected by TPO should not be considered as good comparables. The assessee further submitted that TPO erred in computing the margin of three comparables namely BVG India Limited, Killick Agencies & Marketing Limited and Marketing and Consultant & Agencies Limited. However, the TPO without accepting the submission of assessee rejected these comparables selected by assessee and included five comparables proposed by TPO in final set of comparables and determined arm’s length margin at 15.66% thereby making adjustment of Rs. 7.30 crore about the value of international transaction. The assessee also furnished details of mean margin of different comparables and the reasons for rejection of various comparables of assessee. The assessee furnished detail reasoning / submission to justify the comparability of those comparables which was rejected by TPO. The assessee also gave its submission as to why the comparable included by TPO is not comparable to the assessee.
8. The assessee again vide his submission dated 31.11.2017 filed additional submission as well as raised additional ground of appeal. The assessee raised additional ground of appeal that due to inadvertence amount of Rs. 4.11 crore representing reversal of provision for forex loss has been offered to tax twice in the computation of total income. In support of additional ground of appeal, the assessee stated that statutory auditors of assessee inter alia reported an amount of Rs. 5.30 crore as prior period income in its financials for A.Y. 2013-14 on account of reversal of provision for forex loss. The said prior period income on account of reversal of provision for forex loss pertained to A.Y. 2012-13. As the assessment of AY 2012-13 was in progress, the assessee filed revised computation of income and contended the said prior period income offered to tax on account of reversal of provision for forex loss in A.Y. 2012-13. Further, the above mentioned reversal of provision of forex loss of Rs. 5.30 crore included an amount of Rs. 4.11 crore which was inadvertently again offered in the computation of income for A.Y. 2013-14. The said amount to that extent has been inadvertently added back twice to the total income for A.Y. 201213. The assessee prayed for necessary direction for assessing officer directing for deleting the above referred amount of Rs. 4.11 crore erroneously tax twice in A.Y. 2012-13.
9. The ld. CIT(A) on considering the additional ground of appal recorded the contention of assessee in para 6.8 of his order. The ld. CIT(A) further noted that assessee was asked to justify additional claim and the break up that amount of Rs. 5.30 crore of forex loss is inclusive of Rs. 4.11 crore and that it was already offered to tax. The ld. CIT(A) recorded that despite allowing opportunity, the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to establish factual claim made by assessee with corroborative evidence. The assessee failed to give any satisfactory explanation and evidences; thus, the additional ground of appeal was dismissed.
10. On inclusion / exclusion of various comparables, the ld. CIT(A) on its detailed discussion excluded Aptico Ltd. and BVG India Ltd. And directed to include Cyber Media Research Ltd. In final set of comparables and directed TOP / AO to recompute ALP in accordance with law. While excluding BVG India Ltd., the ld. CIT(A) held that these companies engaged in facility management services, house-keeping services along with services of solid waste management including organic and inorganic waste management, sewage plants for Government entities. These services cannot be treated with support services. While excluding Aptico, the ld CIT(A) held that it is a Government owned company and in assesses own case for AY 2010-11 Aptico was excluded by Tribunal. While including Cyber Media Research Ltd., the CIT(A) held that this companies is primarily engaged in marketing research and management consultancy services which are in the nature of support services hence comparable with assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also relied upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in Nortel Networks India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, Range -13, New Delhi 64 TTJ 21/151 ITD 351/[2015] 40 ITR(T) 102 (Delhi – Trib.)/ITA No. 4765/Del/2011 wherein this comparable was accepted as a suitable comparable for business support service activities. However, it was directed to verify the claim of assessee about related parties’ turnover (RTP) filter and to include in final set of comparable. Thus, allowed substantial relief on transfer pricing adjustment issues.
11. Further, aggrieved both the parties have filed their respective parties. The assessee in its appeal has challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A) in rejecting / dismissing additional ground of appeal about inadvertent inclusion of reversal of forex loss of Rs. 4.11 crore offered twice. The Revenue has challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A) in directing inclusion / exclusion of various comparables. The assessee in its cross appeal has also raised plea about incorrect exclusion / rejection of certain comparables which are engaged in provision of support service.
12. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the various grounds of appeal raised by assessee in its appeal. The learned authorised representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 29.11.2012 and it was revised on 31.03.2014. The revised as well as original return of income was based on unaudited financial statement for relevant financial year. Subsequently, the books of account of assessee were finalised on 13.11.2014. The revised books of account are filed on record. On the basis of revised books of account, the assessee filed revised computation of income based on audited financial statement vide their submission dated 14.12.2015 before assessing officer. The copy of application dated 14.12.2015 filed during the assessment proceeding is also placed on record. In the computation of income, the assessee offered an amount of Rs. 4.11 crore to tax on account of provision of forex loss. In the audited financial statement, the assessee reported an amount of Rs. 10,28,50,184/- as ‘foreign exchange loss’ in other expenses of which Rs. 4.11 crore was attributed to the aforesaid provision. The provision has been reported under “other liabilities” in the audited financial statement for the year. In A.Y. 2013-14, the books of account of assessee was finalised on 30.10.2015, copy of which is also filed on record. In the audited financial statement, the assessee reported an amount of Rs. 5.30 crore under prior period income. The said amount included an amount of Rs. 4.11 crore towards the reversal of aforesaid provision of forex loss booked in the audited financial statement of F.Y. 2012-13. As the amount pertains to A.Y. 2012-13, the assessment was going on for said assessment year, the assessee added this amount of Rs. 5.30 crore on account of reversal of forex loss to the computation of income in A.Y. 2012-13 which led to an inadvertent double addition in A.Y. 2012-13 for same provision. Considering the double addition, in A.Y. 2012-13, during the course of assessment proceeding in A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee could not claim relief of same amount in A.Y. 2013-14 hence assessee rectified computation and withdrew the claim of Rs. 4.11 crore. The computation of income was accepted by AO in final order of A.Y. 2013-14. Subsequently, to correct the double addition in A.Y. 2012-13, the assessee filed additional ground of appeal before ld. CIT(A). Reconciliation of computation of income for A.Y. 2012-13 giving effect to the above rectification of grant relief from double addition of income is also furnished.
13. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submits that no such claim was filed before assessing officer. The ld. CIT(A) graciously admitted the additional ground of appeal yet no details were furnished before him. The assessee now again agitating the similar claim which has not been examined by lower authorities, thus, there is no finding of lower authorities for adjudication of this ground of appeal. No relief, much less claimed before the Tribunal is available to the assessee.
14. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. We find that assessee has raised additional ground of appeal before ld. CIT(A) vide application dated 30.11.2017. The basis of additional ground of appeal has been explained by ld. AR of the assessee in his submission which we have recorded above. We find that ld. CIT(A) while considering the additional ground of appeal gave his finding that despite allowing opportunity, the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to establish factual claim made by assessee with corroborative finding and satisfactory explanation. Before us, the assessee has explained that an amount of Rs. 4.11 crore has been taxed twice and that revised computation of income was filed before assessing officer and that they have withdrawn the claim in A.Y. 2013-14. Considering the fact that aforesaid claim of assessee required factual verification, therefore, the issue is restored back to the file of jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) to verify the fact and pass the order afresh in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, JAO shall allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide complete details including financial statement for A.Y. 2012-13 as well as 2013-14 to the assessing officer. In the result, ground no. 1 & 2 in assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
ITA No. 5008/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) (Revenue’s Appeal)
15. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he supports the order of ld. CIT(A) for including Cyber Media Research Limited (Cyber Media) and excluding Apitco Limited (Apitco) and BVG India Limited (BVG) from final set of comparables. To support the inclusion of Cyber Media Research Limited, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that Cyber Media is primarily engaged in market research and management consultancy services which is in the nature of support services and comparable with assessee. Financial details of such comparable company are available at page no. 145 of the paper book. As per Director’s report, this company is considered as the country’s most comprehensive, dependable and respected source of market intelligence. This company passes the related party (RPT) filter. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Tribunal in Genzyme India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon (Delhi – Trib.)/ITA No. 892/Del/2014 and Goldman Sachs (India) Securities (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT  (Mumbai – Trib.)/ITA No. 7724/Mum/2011 wherein it was held that Cyber Media is functionally similar to the business support services provider company. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) excluded Cyber Media on the ground that it is wholly owned subsidiary of international data group. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that Cyber Media is considered as support service provider by Tribunal in Basell Polyolefins India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT, Mumbai (Mumbai)/ITA No. 2659 of 2016 dated 19.12.2018 (Mumbai–Trib.) and Watanmal (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT(TP) Appeal No. 4 of 2018 & IT Appeal No. 2407 of 2017, dated 16.09.2022] (Chennai-Trib.).
16. To support the exclusion of Apitco, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that as per financial statement of Apitco, the majority share that is 63% share is held by Government entities like Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India who is the constitutional authority is responsible for auditing government companies. As per Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Apitco is a State Government company. The TPO himself rejected EDCIL and ITDC by taking his view that they are government owned companies. Apitco is engaged in high end technical consultancy related and asset reconstruction and management services, micro enterprise development, skill development, entrepreneurship development, cluster development among other activities and thus, is not comparable. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in Mumbai Tribunal in CIT 3, Mumbai v. Thyssen Krupp Industries India (P.) Ltd. (Bombay)/ITA No. 2218 of 2013 dated 28.03.2016 (Bombay HC), Thyssenkrupp Industries India (P.) Ltd. v. ADIT [IT Appeal No. 6460 of 2012, dated 27.02.2013] (Mumbai–Trib.) & Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT, Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai (Mumbai)/ITA No. 193 of 2013 dated 10.12.2024 (Mumbai–Trib.).
17. For exclusion of BVG India Limited, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that BVG is engaged in providing and undertaking facility management, mechanized housekeeping, transportation, plant relocations, attendant services and labour supply. Further, the company also undertakes various projects for garden development, slum rehabilitation, landscaping, beautification projects, rural electrification and other contracts for Government and private organizations and hence cannot be considered a comparable. The DRP in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2015-16 and 2020-21 excluded this company from comparable.
18. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of TPO. Against the inclusion of Cyber Media, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that this comparable with assessee as per detailed finding of TPO. A broadly FAR analysis i.e. function performed asset employed and risk assumed is to be considered while considering the comparability of the comparable companies. On Apitco, the ld. Sr. DR submits that Apitco is providing marketing support services which is similar to the activities of the assessee. For BVG, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that this company is also engaged in the business support services and comparable with the assessee company as per the detailed finding of TPO.
19. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that broadly dispute between the assessee and TPO with regard to inclusion and exclusion of certain comparables. We find that while rejecting Cyber Media as a comparable, TPO held that Cyber Media is wholly owned of international data group and financial of this company cannot be considered as comparable with assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) after recording the finding of TPO and the submission of assessee held that Cyber Media is functionally comparable and should be included in the final list of comparable subject to passing the RPT filter. We find that Delhi Tribunal in Genzyme India (P.) Ltd. and Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that Cyber Media is a comparable to a support service provider. We also find that Cyber Media is considered as a support service provider by Mumbai Tribunal in Basell Polyolefins India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Chennai Tribunal in Watanmal (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We find that ld. CIT(A) on his detailed reasoning directed to include this comparable with the assessee company. Thus, we confirmed the order of ld. CIT(A).
20. So far as exclusion of Apitco is concerned, we find that TPO included this comparable by taking view that services provided by this company are akin to marketing support services and hence comparable with the assessee company. We find that ld CIT(A) while excluding this comparable held that it is Government owned company. Bombay High Court in Thyssenkrupp Industries India Private Limited (supra) and Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT v. International Sos Services India (P.) Ltd. (Delhi)/(ITA No. 454/2028) held that Government companies cannot be considered as comparable. We also find that his comparable was also rejected by Mumbai Tribunal in assesses appeal for AY 201-11. Thus, we affirm the order of ld CIT(A) in exclusion of Apitco from final set of comparables.
21. With regard to exclusion of BVG India Limited(BVG), we find that TPO included this company by taking view that this company is in the business of support services provider. The ld CIT(A held that BVG is engaged in facility management house-keeping, solid wate management, organic and inorganic for Government entity and therefore cannot be compared with the assessee. No separate segment for routine low-end services was available in the accounts and therefore in the basket of services rendered by this company, it cannot be compared with the assessee. We also find that BVG was excluded as a comparable with support services provider company by Tribunal in Sabre Travel Network (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (Mumbai – Trib.)/ITA No. 7306/Mum/2017. We also find that DRP in assess own case for AY 2020-21 excluded this comparable in its direction dated 11.06.2024. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual discussions, we affirm the order of ld CIT(A) with our aforesaid additional findings.Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find merit in all three grounds of appeal raised by Revenue.
22. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
ITA No. 5304/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) (Assessee’s Appeal)
23. Considering the fact that we have dismissed the appeal of Revenue in various comparables, therefore, adjudication of grounds raised in cross objection by assessee in support of other comparables have become academic.
24. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. The appeal of revenue is dismissed. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee have become infructuous and dismissed as such.