Important Case Laws.

Pr CIT vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd (Bombay High Court)

S. 14A/ Rule 8D: The AO is not entitled to make any disallowance under Rule 8D if he does not specifically record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the assessee's claim. The fact that the CIT(A) and ITAT were not satisfied with the assessee's disallowance and enhanced it does not mean that Rule 8D becomes applicable and the disallowance should be computed as per the prescribed formula
The Assessing Officer did not specifically record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. However, he felt obliged and going by the presence of Rule 8D that once Section 14A is attracted, the disallowance is to be made as per Rule 8D only which has been prescribed by the Legislature. The Assessing Officer has not adverted to the plain language of subsection (2) of Section 14A   

Avenues Asia Advisors Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)

Transfer Pricing: Steps to be undertaken in identification of comparable transactions/entities while fixing the ALP and the margin explained. Though the TNMM method allows broad flexibility tolerance in the selection of comparables, broad functionality is not sufficient to find the comparable entity. There must be similarity with the controlled transaction
In so far as identifying comparable transactions/entities is concerned, the same would not differ irrespective of the transfer pricing method adopted. In other words, the comparable transactions/entities must be selected on the basis of similarity with the controlled transaction entity. Comparability of controlled and uncontrolled transactions has to be judged, inter alia, with reference to comparability factors as indicated under rule 10B(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Comparability analysis by the transactional net margin method may be less sensitive to certain dissimilarities between the tested party and the comparables. However, that cannot be the consideration for diluting the standards of selecting comparable transactions/entities. A higher product and functional similarity would strengthen the efficacy of the method in ascertaining a reliable arm’s length price. Therefore, as far as possible, the comparables must be selected keeping in view the comparability factors as specified. Wide deviations in profit level indicator must trigger further investigations/analysis

CIT vs. Ut Starcom Inc. (India Branch) (Delhi High Court)

Transfer Pricing: A giant risk taking company like Infosys Technologies with huge significant intangibles and having huge assets leading to the exorbitant turnover is not comparable with a captive unit which is subject to minimum/ limited risk. The fact that the functional profile of Infosys is similar to that of the assessee is irrelevant

When we examine the profile of the assessee company vis-à-vis Infosys Technologies Limited in the light of the judgment in CIT vs. Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra), there is no comparability for benchmarking the international transactions for the reasons inter alia that Infosys Technologies Limited is a giant risk taking company whereas, on the other hand, the assessee is a captive unit of its parent company and prone to minimum/ limited risk; that the Infosys Technologies Limited is having huge significant intangibles and having huge assets leading to the exorbitant turnover; that it is not in dispute that functional profile of assessee company and CIT vs. Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. is similar