“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

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 103/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

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1310/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1309 & 1310/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Innovator, No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Post, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

rendered as at arm’s length, the assessee filed transfer pricing study in which it adopted Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining the ALP. The operating revenue of the assessee was Rs.5,97,98,396/- and the operating expense was Rs.5

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1309/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

Peri (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD) Circle-13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4608/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Jt. Commissioner Of Peri (India) Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax (Osd), Circle- 1406 Dlh Park S V. Road, 13(1)(2), Room No. 218, 2 Nd Goregaon West, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 062 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecp4115E Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

those parties, no interest is paid. Assessee submits it to be an international transaction but has aggregated with other transactions, adopted TNMM as Most Appropriate method and as its margins were comparable with other comparable companies, Stated this transitions also at arms’ length. It is claim of the assessee that ... amounting to ₹29 lacs was aggregate with other transactions and benchmarked adopting the Transactional Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method and found that the profit level of the assessee which was better than comparable companies it was held to be at arm’s length. The learned Transfer Pricing

M/S Lenovo India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2833/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

associated enterprises (“AEs”) in the manufacturing segment were not at arm’s length. 2.2. Rejection of internal comparable uncontrolled price selected as the most appropriate method by the Appellant 2.2.1. The Hon’ble DRP and learned AO / TPO have erred in law by rejecting the application of Internal Comparable Uncontrolled ... Price (“CUP”) method selected as the most appropriate method (“MAM”) by the Appellant for benchmarking the international transaction of import of raw materials in relation to manufacturing segment. 2.2.2. The Hon’ble DRP and learned AO / TPO have erred in upholding the learned TPO’s stand that average

M/S Talisma Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2499/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2499/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Olympia The Deputy Building, Commissioner Of Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C V Raman Nagar, Circle 7 (1)(1), Byrasandra Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2017 For A.Y. 2013-14 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Talisma Corporation Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned A01 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 (The Act") On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law: 1. The Learned Ao/ Transfer Pricing Officer (.Tpo') Erred. In Law & In Facts. In Making An Addition Of Inr 1,44.13,409

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)

transaction is not at arms length: 3. The learned AO/ TPO erred. in law and facts. in not accepting Other Method as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the payment of royalty transaction: 4. The learned AO/ TPO erred. in law and facts. in not accepting Transactional Net Margin Method ... TNMM') as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the payment of royalty transaction: 5. The learned AO/ TPO erred. in law and in facts. in the rejection of the external comparable uncontrolled transaction ('CUT*) search conducted for benchmarking the payment of royalty transaction. 6. The learned AO / TPO erred

Walvoil Fluid Power India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 1901/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri R.E Balasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

hydraulic valves for automobiles and industrial machinery. Method of determining Arm’s Length Price: As per the Trasfer Pricing (TP) Report, the most appropriate method chosen by the assessee is the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM). 12. The assessee in the TP Report included three entities for comparables. During ... authorities. 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The assessee has used the TNMM method as the most appropriate method for computing the ALP. While choosing the comparables the assessee applied the filters to identify companies which are potentially comparable the assessee and conduct

DCIT - 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Toto India Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 6226/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (CIT)

Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

pertaining to „purchase of finished goods‟. Accordingly, the assessee benchmarked its aforesaid international transaction by applying the Resale Price Method (“RPM”) as the most appropriate method. Further, the payment of trade mark license fees and technical fees relating to trading activity carried on by the assessee was also benchmarked ... applying RPM as the most appropriate method. The assessee accordingly claimed that its aforesaid international transactions are conducted at arm's length price. 6. The Assessing Officer (“the AO”) made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“the TPO”) for determination of arm's length price of the aforesaid international

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 537/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.537/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Ids Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Vs. Shabari Complex, Ground Floor, Fo Cabin, No.8, Circle – 3(1)(1), Field Marshal Cariappa Road, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 025. Pan : Aabci 243O G Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

providing SWD services as at Amr’s Length, the assessee filed a Transfer Pricing study adopting Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining ALP. The assessee had chosen the following set of comparable companies to justify arm’s length nature of its international transactions

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1308/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1307/BANG/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1306/BANG/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1305/BANG/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

Oriental Aromatics Ltd, Mumbi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6331/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 4Section 92(1)

erred in fact and in law confirming the action of the learned TPO and learned AO is considering CUP Method as the most appropriate method for applying rates of interest in pure finance transaction as comparable cases. 6. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) erred in fact

V2 Tech Ventures P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 777/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)

ensuing proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the CPM method and adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as it was stated to be most appropriate method for this case. When assessee submitted that internal TNMM be adopted and submitted documents in support of the same, the TPO rejected ... applicable legal position. 7. We are of the considered view that the reasons, for which internal TNMM is rejected, as a most appropriate method (MAM), are not really correct and convincing. The disclaimer by the auditor with respect to “information and explanation provided to us (i.e. the auditor

Ups Asia Group Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1220/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(i)

service PE under Article 5(2)(1). On the second question the AAR ruled that the transactional net margin method (TNMM) was the most appropriate method for the determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in respect of the service agreement dated 14-4-2005 and it meets

Altran Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2904/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

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

comparables. 11. Without prejudice to the Appellant's contention that the CUP method adopted by the Appellant in its TP documentation is the most appropriate method to benchmark its international transaction of provision of engineering consulting/ design services to AEs, the Id. AO/ TPO/ DRP have erred in their manner ... used to bench mark the international transaction. The Ld.TPO thus 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%. Sl. No. Name of the taxpayer OP/OC CG-VAK Software Exports

Trigyn Technologies Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 6585/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 92C

benchmarked the international transaction pertaining to „Provisions of Software Consultancy Services‟ by applying Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as a most appropriate method with Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of Operating Profit / Operating Expenditure. Accordingly, the TPO proposed an adjustment of Trigyn Technologies Ltd. ITA No. 6585/Mum./2019 Rs.2

DCIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Diesel Fashion India Reliance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly it is to be dismissed as such

ITA 2931/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)

payment of design fees undertaken by the Appellant with its AE. 7. Erred in rejecting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price („CUP‟) Method as the most appropriate method considered by the Appellant to benchmark the international transaction of payment of design fees to its AE. 8. Erred in determining ... erred in rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) adopted by the AO/TPO as the Most Appropriate Method and in directing adoption of Resale Price Method (RPM) as done by the Assessee? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Ecl Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 899/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

support fees to EFSL. The Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the above transactions has been bench marked using any other method as Most Appropriate Method (MAM) in transfer pricing study report. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) vide his order dated 1/11/2016 passed u/s 92CA