← All Phrases

“most appropriate method”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C1,345 judgments

The decision most relied on for most appropriate method is CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. (367 ITR 730), cited in 120 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on most appropriate method

CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 730 · 2014 · High Court
120
citing judgments

This case determines the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for intra-group services and reimbursements, clarifying when charges constitute services warranting a mark-up versus mere pass-through costs. It provides guidance on the circumstances under which an ALP adjustment, including an ALP of 'nil', is appropriate for such transactions.

Dresser-Rand India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
13 Taxmann.com 82 · 2011 · High Court
43
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot disregard an assessee's decision to avail services from associated enterprises, even if the assessee has internal expertise, as the determination of necessity is the assessee's prerogative. The Transfer Pricing Officer's role is to determine the arm's length price, not the need for the service itself.

CIT v. EHPT India P Ltd.
350 ITR 41 · 2013 · High Court
41
citing judgments

The headcount method is an appropriate allocation key for indirect expenses between eligible and non-eligible units when it has been consistently accepted by revenue authorities and there is no just cause for abandoning it. Deviation from a consistently followed and accepted method can disturb or distort profits.

Mobis India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
38 Taxmann.com 231 · 2013 · ITAT
38
citing judgments

A working capital adjustment is unreliable if it is based on broad approximations, estimations, and assumptions, and the assessee fails to demonstrate how the adjustment was arrived at.

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
29 Taxmann.com 300 · 2013 · High Court
37
citing judgments

The 'bright line test' is not an appropriate method for determining the existence of an international transaction for calculating arm's length price. This ruling overrules prior special bench decisions on AMP expenses.

Magneti Marelli Powertrain India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
389 ITR 469 · 2016 · High Court
35
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) or Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot dispute the application of the TNMM method if they have already accepted it as the most appropriate method for certain international transactions, especially when other transactions are intrinsically linked.

Skoda Auto India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, Aurangabad
30 SOT 319 · 2009 · ITAT
26
citing judgments

The Tribunal may allow adjustments for differences between the tested party and comparable companies to eliminate material differences, provided accurate and credible evidence is furnished.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6 v. Matrix Cellular International Services (P.) Ltd.
90 Taxmann.com 54 · 2018 · High Court
25
citing judgments

The Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price of a distributor who does not add significant value to the goods purchased.

Judgments citing most appropriate method

Michael Page International Recruitment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

amounts to Rs.5,98,33,677. The assessee bench marked the said international transactions by adopting Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method where the AEs are taken as the tested parties. As per the bench marking, the arithmetic mean margin of the comparables (page ... price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :— (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,— (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided

Arkha Solar Power Private Limited, Rajahmundary vs. DCIT-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 92/VIZ/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.92/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Arkha Solar Power Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax-1, Elakolanu Village, 4Th Floor, Sri Deepthi Towers, Rangampeta, Rajahmundry, Main Road, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh – 533294. Andhra Pradesh-533001. Pan: Aalca 4293K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Ms. Karishma R. Phatarphekar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma R. PhatarphekarFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C(1)

examination of the TP documents for benchmarking the transaction, the Ld. TPO concurred with the CUP method as the most appropriate method under the given facts of the case. The Ld. TPO also observed that the assessee’s selection of final comparables is inappropriate and arbitrary. The Ld. TPO rejected ... admitted fact that there is no dispute between the Revenue and the assessee with respect to adoption of CUP Method as the most appropriate method. The dispute is only with respect to selection of comparables wherein the assessee’s contention was that the Ld. TPO has selected the comparable companies

Ahlstrom Fibercomposites India Pvt. Ltd., Mundra (Kutch) vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 437/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 437/Rjt/2018 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Ahlstrom Munksjo Vs. D.C.I.T, Fibercomposites(India) Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham Circle, Mundra Sez Integrated Textile & Gandhidham. Apparel Park (Mitap), Plot No.07, Survey No.141, Mundra, Kutch-370421. Pan: Aagca9137M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T Dr सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, C.I.T DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 92

further erred in rejecting cost plus method ('CPM') adopted by the Appellant and selecting Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') as the most appropriate method to determine the Arm's Length Price of sale of goods to AEs. 1.4. Without prejudice to the above ground number 1.3, on the facts ... finished goods for Rs. 16,95,59,316/- only. The assessee benchmarked the impugned transaction by adopting the Cost-Plus Method (CPM) as most appropriate method where the assessee has taken its own segmental data being export to AE and non-AE as internal comparable. 5. The TPO found that

Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7861/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 153Section 80ISection 92C

Appellant for benchmarking the international transaction of payment of royalty to AES: 13. erred in selecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) as the most appropriate method for Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 benchmarking the international transaction of payment of royalty to AEs; Corporate tax grounds Error

Nipro Corporation, Japan, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above for statistical purposes

ITA 1867/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Nipro Corporation, Japan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Nipro India Corporation Pvt. Income Tax , Ltd. International Taxation, Plot No.3-1, Circle 3(3)(1) Room No.1630, 16 Th Floor, Air Midc, Kesurdi, Khandala, Tal, Khandala, Satara, India Building, Mumbai-412802 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecn4534F

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Phadke, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92(3)Section 92C

Guarantee fee on corporate guarantee transaction of Rs 54,16,947/- was determined at ₹5,41,69,470/- by adopting CUP method as Most Appropriate method by taking comparables of four banks having Average rate of Guarantee charged by banks determined at 1.15% reducing therefrom 0.15 % as downward adjustments

Star Television Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1814/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

successful channel operation business on an overall basis. In the TP study, the assessee has adopted the profit split method (PSM) as the most appropriate method. In order to apply the PSM, the consolidated global profitability of channel companies was applied to the Indian revenues generated by the channel companies ... from the factual matrix of the issue, both the Transfer Pricing Officer and the DRP have not disputed applicability of PSM as the most appropriate method to benchmark the transaction with the AEs. The dispute is only confined to the comparability of three comparables as noted above. The Transfer Pricing

Star Asia Region Fz Llc, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1813/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

successful channel operation business on an overall basis. In the TP study, the assessee has adopted the profit split method (PSM) as the most appropriate method. In order to apply the PSM, the consolidated global profitability of channel companies was applied to the Indian revenues generated by the channel companies ... from the factual matrix of the issue, both the Transfer Pricing Officer and the DRP have not disputed applicability of PSM as the most appropriate method to benchmark the transaction with the AEs. The dispute is only confined to the comparability of three comparables as noted above. The Transfer Pricing

Syngenta Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1905/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1905/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Syngenta Services Private Limited, Office No.102, Amar Paradigm, Sr.No.110/11/3, Baner, Pune- 411 045 Pan: Aatcs-3668-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai. Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.A.R सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.A.R
Section 143(3)

business support services. To benchmark the international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) the assessee applied Transactional Net Margin Method(TNMM) as the most appropriate method. The same was accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The Profit Level Indicator OP/OC 14.70% was also accepted by the TPO. However

Luxottica India Eyewear Private Ltd., Haryana vs. Circle 13(1), Delhi

ITA 793/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 793/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Vs. Dcit Ltd. Circle 13(1), 7Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Pan : Aabcl3871C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao &For Respondent: Sh. Manvendra Goyal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92C

order dated 27.01.2022 the Tribunal has followed the adjustment made on account of protective basis and directed the TPO to follow RPM as the appropriate method after giving intensity adjustment and the Tribunal had relied its earlier order for A.Y. 2012-13. The Ld. AO observed that the facts ... directions issued in Appellant’s case for AY 2012-13 wherein intensity adjusted Resale Price Method (‘RPM’) was ultimately used as the most appropriate method. Since Department had not filed any appeal against the ITAT order for AY 2014-15, the same should have been followed by Ld. TPO while

Dy.CIT -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kec International Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1883/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92F

international transaction of advances given (outstanding balances) of ₹ 863,645,534/– to its joint-venture entity and adopting „Other method‟ as the most appropriate method did not charge any interest. The facts show that the assessee has advanced loans to its associated enterprises in South Africa and assessee ... transaction. ITA No. 1852 & 1883/Mum/2022 KEC International Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 2.5 The assessee submitted that comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) was selected as most appropriate method (MAM) with AE being the tested party. The assessee explained that its AE had availed a loan facility from ICICI Bank UK @ 3 months

Kec International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1852/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92F

international transaction of advances given (outstanding balances) of ₹ 863,645,534/– to its joint-venture entity and adopting „Other method‟ as the most appropriate method did not charge any interest. The facts show that the assessee has advanced loans to its associated enterprises in South Africa and assessee ... transaction. ITA No. 1852 & 1883/Mum/2022 KEC International Ltd; A.Y. 2014-15 2.5 The assessee submitted that comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) was selected as most appropriate method (MAM) with AE being the tested party. The assessee explained that its AE had availed a loan facility from ICICI Bank UK @ 3 months

DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4607/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 59. The TPO did not accept the benchmarking done by the assessee and held that TNMM cannot be accepted as most appropriate method. The TPO proceeded to apply CUP method and arrived at an additional TP adjustment of Rs.17,57,731/- 60. Aggrieved the assessee filed ... good profit level indicator (PLI) for calculating the ALP for export of the same products to AE and that TNMM is the most appropriate method to be applied in this case 61. The CIT(A) deleted the further TP adjustment made by the TPO by holding that – “10. Decision

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4562/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 59. The TPO did not accept the benchmarking done by the assessee and held that TNMM cannot be accepted as most appropriate method. The TPO proceeded to apply CUP method and arrived at an additional TP adjustment of Rs.17,57,731/- 60. Aggrieved the assessee filed ... good profit level indicator (PLI) for calculating the ALP for export of the same products to AE and that TNMM is the most appropriate method to be applied in this case 61. The CIT(A) deleted the further TP adjustment made by the TPO by holding that – “10. Decision

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 59. The TPO did not accept the benchmarking done by the assessee and held that TNMM cannot be accepted as most appropriate method. The TPO proceeded to apply CUP method and arrived at an additional TP adjustment of Rs.17,57,731/- 60. Aggrieved the assessee filed ... good profit level indicator (PLI) for calculating the ALP for export of the same products to AE and that TNMM is the most appropriate method to be applied in this case 61. The CIT(A) deleted the further TP adjustment made by the TPO by holding that – “10. Decision

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3385/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 59. The TPO did not accept the benchmarking done by the assessee and held that TNMM cannot be accepted as most appropriate method. The TPO proceeded to apply CUP method and arrived at an additional TP adjustment of Rs.17,57,731/- 60. Aggrieved the assessee filed ... good profit level indicator (PLI) for calculating the ALP for export of the same products to AE and that TNMM is the most appropriate method to be applied in this case 61. The CIT(A) deleted the further TP adjustment made by the TPO by holding that – “10. Decision

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

I.T.A. No.4562&4607/Mum/2017 59. The TPO did not accept the benchmarking done by the assessee and held that TNMM cannot be accepted as most appropriate method. The TPO proceeded to apply CUP method and arrived at an additional TP adjustment of Rs.17,57,731/- 60. Aggrieved the assessee filed ... good profit level indicator (PLI) for calculating the ALP for export of the same products to AE and that TNMM is the most appropriate method to be applied in this case 61. The CIT(A) deleted the further TP adjustment made by the TPO by holding that – “10. Decision

Morgan Stanley India Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 594/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 340 & 7550/Mum/2019 Ita Nos. 594 & 2435/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2018-19) Morgan Stanley India Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Company Private Limited National E-Assessment 18F, B Wing, Tower-2, Centre, Delhi Oneworld Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacj4998F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Sunil Motilala Respondent By : Manoj Kumar & Jancy Elizabeth Rani Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar &
Section 154

Honourable DRP, erred on the following grounds 2.1 In not accepting the Appellant's contention that the Transactional Net Margin Method is the most appropriate method for determining the ALP for the broking commission earned on trades executed on behalf of the AES 2.2 In using Comparable Uncontrolled Price ... pressed, therefore, the same stand dismissed as not pressed. 9. Ground No. 1-2.1: Regarding applicability of transactions net margin method as the most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price for the broking commission earned on trades executed on behalf of the associate enterprises: 10. The assessee

Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2435/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 340 & 7550/Mum/2019 Ita Nos. 594 & 2435/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2018-19) Morgan Stanley India Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Company Private Limited National E-Assessment 18F, B Wing, Tower-2, Centre, Delhi Oneworld Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacj4998F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Sunil Motilala Respondent By : Manoj Kumar & Jancy Elizabeth Rani Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar &
Section 154

Honourable DRP, erred on the following grounds 2.1 In not accepting the Appellant's contention that the Transactional Net Margin Method is the most appropriate method for determining the ALP for the broking commission earned on trades executed on behalf of the AES 2.2 In using Comparable Uncontrolled Price ... pressed, therefore, the same stand dismissed as not pressed. 9. Ground No. 1-2.1: Regarding applicability of transactions net margin method as the most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price for the broking commission earned on trades executed on behalf of the associate enterprises: 10. The assessee

Morgan Stanley India Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1009/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 340 & 7550/Mum/2019 Ita Nos. 594 & 2435/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2018-19) Morgan Stanley India Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Company Private Limited National E-Assessment 18F, B Wing, Tower-2, Centre, Delhi Oneworld Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacj4998F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Sunil Motilala Respondent By : Manoj Kumar & Jancy Elizabeth Rani Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar &
Section 154

Honourable DRP, erred on the following grounds 2.1 In not accepting the Appellant's contention that the Transactional Net Margin Method is the most appropriate method for determining the ALP for the broking commission earned on trades executed on behalf of the AES 2.2 In using Comparable Uncontrolled Price ... pressed, therefore, the same stand dismissed as not pressed. 9. Ground No. 1-2.1: Regarding applicability of transactions net margin method as the most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price for the broking commission earned on trades executed on behalf of the associate enterprises: 10. The assessee

Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 4 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7550/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 340 & 7550/Mum/2019 Ita Nos. 594 & 2435/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2018-19) Morgan Stanley India Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Company Private Limited National E-Assessment 18F, B Wing, Tower-2, Centre, Delhi Oneworld Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacj4998F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Sunil Motilala Respondent By : Manoj Kumar & Jancy Elizabeth Rani Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar &
Section 154

Honourable DRP, erred on the following grounds 2.1 In not accepting the Appellant's contention that the Transactional Net Margin Method is the most appropriate method for determining the ALP for the broking commission earned on trades executed on behalf of the AES 2.2 In using Comparable Uncontrolled Price ... pressed, therefore, the same stand dismissed as not pressed. 9. Ground No. 1-2.1: Regarding applicability of transactions net margin method as the most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price for the broking commission earned on trades executed on behalf of the associate enterprises: 10. The assessee