“most appropriate method”

Franklin Templeton International Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Year 2009-10 3. From the transfer pricing study report, the Ld. TPO noted that, assessee used Transactional Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method and OP/OC as PLI to compute its margin under both the segment at 18.2% and 16.7% for data processing and software development services respectively

DCIT-13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 3432/Mum/2019

have simply performed marketing agent function for the assessee and it is ideal to remunerate them on simple cost plus method being the most appropriate method under the facts and circumstances, instead of taking assessee performing complex functions as tested party and using the least appropriate method of TNMM under ... software development and related services. 8.3. For benchmarking the international transactions, the assessee adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method and reported a net profit margin of 22.31% for the year under consideration. The assessee treated itself to be the tested party and selected

Oracle Financial Services Software Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-13(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 3432/Mum/2019

have simply performed marketing agent function for the assessee and it is ideal to remunerate them on simple cost plus method being the most appropriate method under the facts and circumstances, instead of taking assessee performing complex functions as tested party and using the least appropriate method of TNMM under ... software development and related services. 8.3. For benchmarking the international transactions, the assessee adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method and reported a net profit margin of 22.31% for the year under consideration. The assessee treated itself to be the tested party and selected

Unilever India Exports Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2015–16 and 2016–17 are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Unilever India Dcit Central Exports Limited, Circle-5(2), Unilever House, B. D. Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Sawant Marg, Floor, Kautilya Chakala, Andheri Bhawan, C-41 To C- East, Sahar P & T 43, G Block, Bandra Colony, S. O. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 099 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aaaci0991D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarphekara/W Shri Harsh Shah & Shri Shreyas Sardesai, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2026

base and attributing the residual profits to the non-Associated Enterprise segment. Internal Transactional Net Margin Method (Internal TNMM) was adopted as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM), and transfer pricing adjustments were computed accordingly. 6. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. By order dated 31 March ... learned TPO and the learned AO, under directions of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in applying internal TNMM as the most appropriate method despite the difference in function, asset and risk profile of the AE and the Non-AE segment and without appreciating that this Hon'ble Tribunal has held

Unilever India Exports Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Associated 4 ITA No. 4156 & 4157/Mum/2025 Unilever India Exports Limited Enterprise segment. Internal Transactional Net Margin Method (Internal TNMM) was adopted as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM), and transfer pricing adjustments were computed accordingly. 6. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. By order dated 31 March ... learned TPO and the learned AO, under directions of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in applying internal TNMM as the most appropriate method despite the difference in function, asset and risk profile of the AE and the Non-AE segment and without appreciating that this Hon'ble Tribunal has held

Firstrand Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

observed that ld. TPO had not disturbed the FAR study carried out by the assessee and had accepted TNMM as the most appropriate method for determining the ALP and PLI has OP/OC. It was observed that ld. TPO accepted the study conducted by the assessee up to the point ... were without establishing that such differences in size materially affects the profit margin. According to the assessee, once TNMM has been adopted as most appropriate method exact comparability is not required since certain degree of functional dilution of tolerance is permissible, given the broader nature of benchmarking analysis under this

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Australia & New Zealand Deputy Commissioner Of Banking Group Ltd. Income-Tax – 1(1)(2), Unit A, Sixth Floor, Mumbai Cnergy Centre, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 (Pan : Aaica3008P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order Dated 04.09.2018 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground 1: Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Relating To Processing Fees Received On Account Of Guarantees Issued To Indian Companies Based On Counter-Guarantee From Overseas Branches

Ground 2: Rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) used by the Appellant and adopting External Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the most appropriate method On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO. based on the directions ... received from the AE, without undertaking risk on the overseas third party requesting the guarantee. b) In adopting external CUP method as the most appropriate method to determine the ALP of the international transaction, by using information received/collected from third party Indian banks under section 133(6), and without