“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Epson India Private Limited, Ulsoor vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

Support Services Segment was accepted as at Arm’s lengyh by the TPO. The assessee has chosen Resale Price Method (RPM) as the most appropriate method for the Trading (Distribution) segment and arrived at the average mean of gross profits margin(GPM) of 7 comparables which is at 4.44% whereas ... similar adjudication. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The assessee has chosen RPM as the most appropriate method (MAM) for arriving at ALP. The assessee has chosen 7 comparables based on various filters applied and the median of weighted average of adjusted gross

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1106/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

challenging the rejection of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) used by the assessee and adopting external Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM). 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is a commercial bank having ... available and data of margins under TNMM is readily available, then it would be appropriate to apply TNMM method as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3.7. We find that assessee had explained the entire transactions and the modus operandi applied

Netapp India Marketing and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 181/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri G.C. Srivastava, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)

support services”. However, the TPO aggregated both transactions and accordingly rejected the TP study of the assessee. The TPO adopted TNM method as most appropriate method and OP/OC as profit level indicator. The TPO selected following 4 comparable companies:- Sl.No. Company Name Margin as per TPO’s order 1 Focus

M/S.Tokai Rika Minda India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2327/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2327/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Tokai Rika Minda India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Plot No.365, Sompura 1St Stage Kiadb Industrial Area Dobbaspet, Nelamangala Taluk Bangalore Rural Dist – 562 111. Pan : Aadct0271C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

sets and locks to automotive industry. The assessee has manufacturing facility. The assessee in its TP study, has adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method. The assessee has arrived at set of 2 comparable companies with an average OPM of 2.80% viz-a-viz that of 23.11 % of the assessee ... given six methods and in the manner as is prescribed in Rule 10B of the Rules. Rule 10B in turn states that the most appropriate method would be one which inter alia provides the most reliable measure of ALP, and one of the important factors to be taken into account

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1650/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT–DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90Section 91

functional analysis presented in the TP report, the assessee has selected itself as a tested party, Transactional Net Margin Method (―TNMM‖) as the most appropriate method with OP/OC as profit level indicator (―PLI‖) for benchmarking receipts from A.Es. for provision of software, technical and consultancy services rendered. 81. The Assessing

Credit Suisse Consulting (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

619/Mum/2014

ITA 619/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Indian companies or associated entity that makes investment in unlisted Indian Companies. The assessee had applied Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the aforesaid international transaction. The assessee has a net margin of 20% of operating ... parent company at Singapore has received mark-up of 21%. This margin of 21% has been benched marked by using TNMM as the most appropriate method with PLI as operating profit to operating cost. After detail process of selection in "Prowess data" and selection criteria, it had selected six comparables

Newedge Broker India Pvt Ltd. Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 606/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

further find that the ld. DRP in para 3.6 of its directions had resorted to adopt Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for benchmarking the aforesaid services. Having stated so, the ld. DRP had not taken any pains to bring the comparable companies to conclude ... that assessee has only 15 staff in its rolls in India. We find that the ld. DRP having stated that CUP is the Most Appropriate Method to be adopted in this case did not bother to bring in comparable instances to determine the ALP using CUP whereas the assessee

Newedge Broker India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 605/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Iss Facility Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms of aforesaid

ITA 411/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.411/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2013-14) Iss Facility Services India Private Limited The Qube, B 401/404 & A 402 Behind Taj Stats, Village Marol Sahar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 059 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aabc13815M बनाम/Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 10(1)(2) Room No. 14, 20Th Floor, Air India Building, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: Shri. M.P. Lohia with Shri. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Limited Sl.No3). As per transfer pricing report, assessee, inter-alia, benchmarked the aforesaid two transactions by applying Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’) as Most Appropriate Method (‘MAM’) by treating its associated enterprise (‘AE’), i.e. ISS World Services A/S, Denmark, as a tested party. The Assessee selected 8 comparable companies operating

Newedge Broker India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1254/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly

ITA 2870/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 9Th Floor Prestige Of Income-Tax Thirulakshmi Vs. Circle-3(1)(1) No.11 M.G. Road Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 001 Pan No : Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Respondent By : D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 92C

Recovery of expenses 1878563 Trade receivables 370266108 Trade payables 9002024 Receivables 1878563 Payables 3523261 5. The Ld.TPO noted that assessee used TNMM as most appropriate method to bench mark the software development & Marketing support services to the AE. Assessee used OP/OC as PLI and computed its margin for both ... used to bench mark the international transaction. The Ld.TPO applied various filters and shortlisted following comparables. The Ld.TPO used TNMM as most appropriate method and OP/OC as PLI to compute the average margin of 20.9%. Unadjusted SI. No. Company Name OP/OC 1 C G—V A K Software & Exports

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 3363/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3363/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Tyco Fire & The Assistant Security India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of D-601, Rmz Contennial, Income Tax, Kundalahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct0087C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Dated October 26, 2018 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 20, 2018 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Drp") U/S 144C (5) Of The Act (`The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

benchmark management services transaction basis TNMM and adopting the *Other Method' as per Rule 10B(1)(f) of the Rules to be the most appropriate method. 25. Without prejudice to the above grounds. the learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in law and in facts. by adopting unjustified / arbitrary basis ... computing the margin under P&T segment. He submitted that assessee did remind the margin to be 11.3% by using TNN members are most appropriate method. 28. It is also submitted by the Ld.AR that assessee has benchmarked the transaction by using TNN members are most appropriate method and using

M/S Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154

under utilization of capacity (Ground 6) 7. The assessee in the transfer pricing study has applied Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method and basis that the assessee concluded that the international transactions at arm’s length price (ALP) in arriving at the operating profit margins

M/S Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 129/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92

Sec.92D of the Act justifying the price it received from the AE. The Assessee chose Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) – as the Most Appropriate Method for comparing Assessee’s profit margin with that of comparable companies. Under this method the comparison is made between the Assessee’s the operating

Givaundan(India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Ltu Cr 1, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/BANG/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 229/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Givaudan (India) The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 26, 2Nd Cross, Income Tax, Jigani Industrial Area, Ltu, Bangalore – 562 106. Circle – 1, Vs. Pan: Aaacv7454J Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumeet Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit- Revenue By I Date Of Hearing : 11-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaiit Is Submitted That The Main Appeal Was Heard By This Tribunal & Order Was Passed On 02/08/2019. However Grounds 6 & 7 Were Not Adjudicated Independently For Assessment Year 2010- 11. The Assessee Preferred Mp No.15/Bang/2020 Requesting For Adjudication Of These Grounds. 2. Accordingly The Present Appeal Is Fixed For Hearing For Adjudication Of Following Grounds: “6. That The Learned Ao & The Learned Panel Erred Both In Facts & Law In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Tpo Of Making An Adjustment To The Transfer Price Of The Appellant In Respect Of The Payment Of Royalty By Rs.27,67,42,242, Holding That The International Transaction

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CA

doing so grossly erred in: 6.1. Upholding the approach of the learned TPO on Applying the CUP method as the most appropriate method despite acknowledging and accepting the selection of TNMM by the Appellant in demonstrating the arm's length nature of its international transactions in the TP documentation ... submitted that the assessee had bench marked the payment of Royalty by adopting a combined approach by considering TNMM as the most appropriate method. The Ld.AR submitted that payment of royalty is closely linked to the manufacturing segment. 5. For the year under consideration, assessee paid Rs.276

M/S. Capco Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2436/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, 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,— (i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3089/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Income Tax Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Officer, Doddathogur Village, Ward – 7 (1) (3), Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Verifone India Technology Pvt. Ltd., A 101, 1St Floor, Cyber The Deputy Park, Plot No. 76, 77 & 78, Commissioner Of Doddathogur Village, Income Tax, Begur Hobli, Circle – 7 (1)(2), Bangalore South Taluk, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaccv1683K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2022

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 92C

Ld.TPO noted that assessee computed the margin at 14.94% by using OP/OC PLI. It used TNMM as the most appropriate method and used 12 comparables having average margin at 10.94%. It was thus submitted by the assessee that the transaction is at arms length. The Ld.TPO rejected the TP study ... Ld.TPO noted that assessee computed the margin at 14.91% by using OP/OC PLI. It used TNMM as the most appropriate method and used 7 comparables having average margin at 7.66%. It was thus submitted by the assessee that the transaction is at arms length. 14. The Ld.TPO rejected

M/S Verifone India Technology Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 3088/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 92C

Ingersoll Rand Technologies and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri , CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Treating cost construction charges as a separate class of transaction and applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP) as the most appropriate method as against the Transaction Net Margin Method as applied by the assessee (Ground No. 2 to 4) iii. In the corporate tax, the main issue contended ... this cost contribution charges. The TPO considered the cost contribution charges as a separate class of transaction and applied CUP method as the most appropriate method for computing the ALP of this particular class of transaction. While making the TP adjustment applying CUP method, the TPO made an estimate towards

M/S Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 790/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(Tp)A No.790/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Brady Company India Private The Income Tax Officer Limited, No.26, Survey No.41 Ward 1(1)(4) V. Bengaluru. Konappana Agrahara Village Begur, Hobli, Electronci City, Phase-Ii, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaccb8163A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals Are At The Instance Of The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Reason For Filing Two Appeals For Assessment Year 2014-2015 Is That Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel’S (Drp) Directions (Directions Dated 28.09.2008), The A.O. Passed Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act Dated 15.11.2018. In The Said Assessment Order, The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Was Determined At Rs.14,43,51,081. An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act (Appeal No.It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019). Subsequently, On Application By The Assessee, The Drp Passed Rectification Order Dated

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

given six methods and in the manner as is prescribed in Rule 10B of the Rules. Rule 10B in turn states that the most appropriate method would be one which inter alia provides the most reliable measure of ALP, and one of the important factors to be taken into account ... Adjustment) 5. Brief facts in relation to the above issue are as follows: The assessee had applied TNMM method as the Most Appropriate Method for justifying the ALP of the transaction of 16 IT(TP)A No.103 & 790/Bang/2019. M/s.Brady Company India Private Limited. management fees paid. In the TP documentation