← 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

Abbott India Ltd (As Successor to Solvay Pharma India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1705/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Abott India Limited Addl. Cit-Range 7(2) Unit 3-4, Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Vs. Marg, Mumbai-400 071. Mumbai-400 020 Pan No. Aaacu 9269 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in rejecting the application of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method used by the assessee for benchmarking the International transactions in respect of imports of APIs from its Associated Enterprise (AEs). Further learned Commissioner of Income ... Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the Assessee during the relevant period had performed a scientific analysis for selection of the Most Appropriate method having regard to the provisions of the rule 108 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 5 ABOTT INDIA LIMITED (Rules). The Commissioner of Income

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4295/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

learned TPO found that non-charging of interest was not atarm‟s length and therefore he, adopted the internal CUP (comparable uncontrolledprice)as most appropriate method and took average rate of interest charged to other AEs, which was 5% to 8%, therefore he held average rate ... different countries here market conditions are different. He has also not stated as to which method as per 1.T. Act/Rules is the most appropriate method to determine arm's length price and which method has been followed by him as well as what adjustments should be made in view

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4294/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

learned TPO found that non-charging of interest was not atarm‟s length and therefore he, adopted the internal CUP (comparable uncontrolledprice)as most appropriate method and took average rate of interest charged to other AEs, which was 5% to 8%, therefore he held average rate ... different countries here market conditions are different. He has also not stated as to which method as per 1.T. Act/Rules is the most appropriate method to determine arm's length price and which method has been followed by him as well as what adjustments should be made in view

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4293/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

learned TPO found that non-charging of interest was not atarm‟s length and therefore he, adopted the internal CUP (comparable uncontrolledprice)as most appropriate method and took average rate of interest charged to other AEs, which was 5% to 8%, therefore he held average rate ... different countries here market conditions are different. He has also not stated as to which method as per 1.T. Act/Rules is the most appropriate method to determine arm's length price and which method has been followed by him as well as what adjustments should be made in view

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2863/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

learned TPO found that non-charging of interest was not atarm‟s length and therefore he, adopted the internal CUP (comparable uncontrolledprice)as most appropriate method and took average rate of interest charged to other AEs, which was 5% to 8%, therefore he held average rate ... different countries here market conditions are different. He has also not stated as to which method as per 1.T. Act/Rules is the most appropriate method to determine arm's length price and which method has been followed by him as well as what adjustments should be made in view

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2862/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

learned TPO found that non-charging of interest was not atarm‟s length and therefore he, adopted the internal CUP (comparable uncontrolledprice)as most appropriate method and took average rate of interest charged to other AEs, which was 5% to 8%, therefore he held average rate ... different countries here market conditions are different. He has also not stated as to which method as per 1.T. Act/Rules is the most appropriate method to determine arm's length price and which method has been followed by him as well as what adjustments should be made in view

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2860/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

learned TPO found that non-charging of interest was not atarm‟s length and therefore he, adopted the internal CUP (comparable uncontrolledprice)as most appropriate method and took average rate of interest charged to other AEs, which was 5% to 8%, therefore he held average rate ... different countries here market conditions are different. He has also not stated as to which method as per 1.T. Act/Rules is the most appropriate method to determine arm's length price and which method has been followed by him as well as what adjustments should be made in view

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2859/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

learned TPO found that non-charging of interest was not atarm‟s length and therefore he, adopted the internal CUP (comparable uncontrolledprice)as most appropriate method and took average rate of interest charged to other AEs, which was 5% to 8%, therefore he held average rate ... different countries here market conditions are different. He has also not stated as to which method as per 1.T. Act/Rules is the most appropriate method to determine arm's length price and which method has been followed by him as well as what adjustments should be made in view

ACIT Cen Ci-43 vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 10/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

learned TPO found that non-charging of interest was not atarm‟s length and therefore he, adopted the internal CUP (comparable uncontrolledprice)as most appropriate method and took average rate of interest charged to other AEs, which was 5% to 8%, therefore he held average rate ... different countries here market conditions are different. He has also not stated as to which method as per 1.T. Act/Rules is the most appropriate method to determine arm's length price and which method has been followed by him as well as what adjustments should be made in view

Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 282/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92C(3)Section 92DSection 9A(3)

median of the Data set has to be calculated. It is only when the comparables are less than this or if the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) calculated by using the appropriate method that are applicable as per Rule 10B of the Act, then Rule 10CA of the I.T. Rules

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 211/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

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) to (d) (e)transactional net margin method, by which,— (i)the net profit margin realised by the enterprise

Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 209/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 209/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Applied Materials India Pvt. Ltd., Unit -5, 3Rd Floor, The Deputy Explorer Building, Commissioner Of International Tech Income Tax, Park, Circle – 1(1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaeca2635C Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

noted that assessee computed its margin by using OP/OC as PLI at 11.09% for software development service segment. Assessee had used TNMM as most appropriate method for benchmarking the transaction. In the TP study, assessee had used 7 comparables with an average margin of 10.91% and thus held its transaction ... respect of provision of software development services by assessee and that since arms length price has been computed by TNMM as the most appropriate method, it subsumes the principle transaction of rendering of SWD services and therefore the outstanding receivables cannot be considered as an independent international transaction. 9.2 Reliance

Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 404/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 92BSection 92C

Development Services 6.1 The lower income tax authorities have erred in: a. Rejecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method adopted by the Appellant as the most appropriate method; b. Rejecting the transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant under the CUP Method without giving any cogent reasons and on unjustifiable grounds ... been considered while concluding the proceedings. 6.3 The lower authorities have erred in: a. Adopting Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method. Without prejudice, the learned TPO has erred in not adopting internal comparables under TNMM. b. Adopting inappropriate filters like 25% RPT filter, one sided turnover

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)

assessee), is nowhere supported by the TNMM under Rule 10B(1)(e) of the Rules. Having determined that (TNMM) to be the most appropriate method, the only rules and norms prescribed in that regard could have been applied to 26 IT(TP)A Nos. 460 & 446/Bang/2016 determine whether the exercise

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Astra Zenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 446/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)

assessee), is nowhere supported by the TNMM under Rule 10B(1)(e) of the Rules. Having determined that (TNMM) to be the most appropriate method, the only rules and norms prescribed in that regard could have been applied to 26 IT(TP)A Nos. 460 & 446/Bang/2016 determine whether the exercise

Torrecid India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Circle-3(3) (1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Torrecid India Private Limited Income Tax Circle-3(3)(1) Flat No. 29,30,31, Gidc, Savli, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 Alidra, Vadodara, Vs. 020 Gujarat-391775 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl4860B Assessee By : Shri. Sagar Sawhney. Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Srar Date Of Hearing: 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Sagar SawhneyFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta SRAR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

made on account of computation of arm’s length price of international transaction of import of finished goods rejecting the most appropriate method adopted by the assessee of resale price method, but the transactional net margin method adopted by the TPO. Torrecid India Private Limited.; A.Y.2017-18 02. The assessee ... finished goods from AEs vide its impugned order dated February 16, 2022. 2. Rejection of Methodical Transfer Pricing analysis and selection of most appropriate method for benchmarking analysis without providing any cogent reasons : Torrecid India Private Limited.; A.Y.2017-18  On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

Study) to justify the price paid in the international Transaction as at ALP by adopting the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) of determining ALP. The Assessee selected Operating Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) for the purpose of comparison ... 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) to (d) .... (e)transactional net margin method, by which,— IT(TP) A No. 270/Bang/2021 Tyco Fire and Security

Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80G

heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Rule 10B(5) reads as follows – (5) In a case where the most appropriate method for determination of the arm's length price of an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction, entered into on or after ... above rule use of multiple year data would be used in the cases where TNMM, RPM or CPM is used as the most appropriate method to benchmark the transaction. The rule provides that where data for current year is not available at the time of furnishing the return of income

M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1695/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1695/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 69/2 & 69/3, Commissioner Of Kunigal Road, Income Tax, Jakkasandra, Circle – 6(1)(1), Nelamangala, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 562 123. Pan: Aabcs7591Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Assessee By Ca : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Revenue By Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 20/05/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law. Transfer Pricing - General Grounds 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao & Tpo In: A) Making A Reference For The Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price Of The International Transactions To The Tpo

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain

learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO and TPO in: (i) Not considering Resale Price Method as the appropriate method to compute arm's Length price under trading segment; (ii) Considering foreign exchange gain/loss as operating in nature in the case of comparables ... assessee, that is manufacturing filters for pharmaceutical and food processing industry. 8.3 The Ld.DR submitted that as assessee is using TNMM as the most appropriate method, a broad classification will not prejudice the assessee as the comparables selected by the TPO are also into manufacturing of filters. 8.4 We have

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

Infosys Consulting India Ltd.) computed the net margins at 16.41% from the income earned from software consultancy services. It used TNMM as the most appropriate method and OP/OC as PLI. This was held to be at arms length based on 9 comparables selected by the assessee. 4.6. The Ld.TPO dissatisfied