“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

DCIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nomura Structured Finance Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1711/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Smt. Vatsalya Jha

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

assessee by its associated enterprises 5. In respect of „Provision of ITeS Services‟, the assessee used Transactional Net Margin Method („TNMM‟) as the most appropriate method with Profit Level Indicator („PLI‟) of Operating Profit to Operating Cost („OP/OC‟). The assessee computed its own PLI at 14.21% as against that ... Services‟ was at arm‟s length price („ALP‟). Further, in respect of „Provision of Research Support Services‟, the assessee similarly adopted TNMM as most appropriate method with OP/OC as PLI. The assessee computed its own PLI at 26.17% as against that of comparables at 23.21% and claimed that the international

M/S Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3133/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3133/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 65/2, Bagmane Laurel, Commissioner Of Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C.V Raman Nagar, Circle – 2 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 093. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcc2470Q Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar

Section 133(6)Section 92CSection 92D

Reimbursement of expenses received towards withholding 5,96,77,344/- tax on stock option The Ld.TPO observed that assessee used TNMM as the most appropriate method and OP/OC as PLI to compute its margin at 22.82%. The Ld.TPO used following 7 comparables with an average margin of 11.93% and held

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Pmc Sierra India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objection of assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1139/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1139/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Micro Semi Storage Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Pmc-Sierra India Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd.) Circle – 4(1)(1), 19, Church Street, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aadcp6802F Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 84/Bang/2017 (In It(Tp)A No. 1139/Bang/2016) (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit & Revenue By Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2013 By The Ld.Dcit

Section 143(3)Section 92C

expenses (paid) Page 3 of 19 IT(TP)A No. 1139/Bang/2016 & C.O. No. 84/Bang/2017 The Ld.TPO observed that assessee used TNMM as the most appropriate method to compute its margin at 15.94% by using OP/OC as PLI. The Ld.TPO observed that assessee selected following 17 comparables with an average margin

Kirloskar Toyota Textile Machinery Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 197/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.197/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Toyota Industries Engine India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Kirloskar Toyota Textile Circle – 11(5), Machinery Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. Plot No.09, 2Nd Phase, Jigani Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 105. Pan : Aaack 7425 Q Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ajit Tolani, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Tolani, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

based on arm's length markup of the comparables at 2.43% on sales using Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. TPO and sustained the application of TNMM method and rejected RPM Method. 4. It is the submission ... carry out any value addition for products carried out by it. The Tribunal had to consider the appropriateness of adopting RPM as the most appropriate method for determining ALP. The Tribunal followed the decision rendered by the ITAT, Bengaluru Bench, in the case of Acer India

American Power Conversion (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

against which revenue amounting to Rs.3,64,35,403/- was received. It was observed in TP study that, assessee used TNMM as most appropriate method, with PLI of OP/TC and determined margin of assessee to be at 9.73%. Assessee selected following 16 comparables in transfer pricing study with average margin ... research and development services during year. Arms length price of international transaction representing research and development services was determined by applying TNMM as most appropriate method and OP/TC as PLI. Assessee computed its margin at 10% on cost and average margin of 3 comparables were determined

Red Hat India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1379/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144B

length. 6. The assessee in order to benchmark its international transactions qua software development services again used TNMM as the most appropriate method as OP/OC as the PLI chosen 16 comparables with margin of 12.19% as against its own margin of 15% and found its transaction at arm’s length ... range. 7. The assessee in order to benchmark its international transaction qua Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES), assessee again used TNMM as the most appropriate method, chosen 14 comparables with margin of 10.83% as against operating margin of the assessee at 15.24% and found its international transactions

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C

licensed manufacturing activity, is at arm’s length, the assessee filed the transfer pricing study adopting Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determination of ALP. The Profit Level Indicator (PLI) chosen for the purpose of the comparison of the assessee’s profit margin with ... length. 5. The TPO accepted 1 out of 10 comparable companies chosen by the assessee. The TPO also applied TNMM as the most appropriate method for determination of the ALP. The PLI chosen for the purpose of comparison was operating profit / operating cost (OP/OC). The TPO selected 8 other

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

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

ITA 3313/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 40

results by reallocating some of the expenses. The TPO computed Operating expenses at Rs.260.74 crores. 4.2 The assessee had adopted TNM method as most appropriate method and Operating Profit to Sales as Profit Level Indicator (PLI). The TPO was not satisfied with the Transfer Pricing Study conducted by the assessee

Sabmiller India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7157/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

transfer pricing study report has conducted economic analysis of the price paid to the A.E. towards service received by adopting TNMM as the most appropriate method. Further, the assessee has undertaken comparability analysis by selecting independent comparables from the database and M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited considering the margin ... transaction under TNMM basis, unless the Revenue authorities can demonstrate that some other method of ascertaining the arm's length price would be more appropriate method, they cannot discard the method adopted by the assessee and determine the arm's length price at nil without following any method. Ultimately

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

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

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

learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in selecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") as the most appropriate method while computing the arm's length price of the payment of IT and management fees to the AE. 11. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable ... 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

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

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

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Sharp Software Development India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2358/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri. Sri.Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

services with AEs, the assesee in its transfer pricing study had undertaken the comparability analysis selecting Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method and computed the average net margin of 13.60% on operating cost. The net margin earned by the assessee for the software development services being

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 837/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Circle – 7(1)(2), (Formerly Cambridge Solutions Ltd.,) Bengaluru. Sjr Ipark (Opp. Satya Sai Hospital), 13, 14, 15 Epip Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aafcs 9303 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nirmal Mathew, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Nirmal Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10A

international jurisprudence itself recognise that there cannot be an exact comparable to a given situation, especially with TNMM as the most appropriate method"? 7. "Whether the CIT(A) is right in law in demanding comparability standards that may itself defeat the purpose of law relating to determination of ALP under

M/S. Radisys India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2482/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2482/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Radisys India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, 6Th Floor, Electra Wing B, Exora Business Park, Circle - 5(1)(1), Sarjapur, Bengaluru. Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccc 3169 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahaveer C Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Mahaveer C Jain, 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,— (i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise

M/S Endemol India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6780/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Endemol India Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of 1601, Grandeur Veera Desai Income Tax, Central Circle Road Andheri, West, Vs. 16(1), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce5452G M/S Endemol India Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of 1601, Grandeur Veera Desai Income Tax, Central Circle Road Andheri, West, Vs. 16(1), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pinisetty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.2.2022

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty, DR

learned AO / learned TPO to compute adjustment if any under TNMM inspite of accepting TNMM as applied by the appellant as the most appropriate method. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the adjustment made ... impugned support services have been connected with four different other international transactions , so aggregated, benchmarked by adopting Transactional Net Margin method [TNMM] as most appropriate method [ MAM]. It was stated that the same are at Arm’s Length. 06. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer accepted the other transactions but looked

Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited (Formerly Sami Labs Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for both the years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3353/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Sami –Sabinsa Group Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Sami Labs Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 19/1 & 19/2, I Main, Income Tax, Ii Phase, Circle 6 (1)(1), Peenya Industrial Area, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aadcs2549E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Bhavya Bansal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Undated For A.Y. 2013-14 & 23.10.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore. The Above Appeals Are Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order As Common Issues Arises On Identical Facts. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Are Reproducing The Grounds Raised By Assessee For Assessment Year 2013-14. Page 2 Of 7 It(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal, CA

Section 92BSection 92C

using Cost Plus Method (CPM) analysis, however, the Ld.TPO rejected the CPM analysis and used Transactional Net Margins Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method. 3.1 The Ld.AR at this juncture submitted that assessee do not object for the use of TNMM. Accordingly, ground no. 1 stands dismissed. However, she submitted

M/S Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited (Formerly Sami Labs Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for both the years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2764/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal, CA

Section 92BSection 92C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Citicorp Finance (I) Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4608/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmandy.Cit, Circle-14(1)(2), M/S. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd., बनाम Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Vs First International Financial Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 8Th Floor, Plot Nos. C-54 & C-55, Mumbai-400020 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं/.Pan /Tan No: Aabca3223B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Madhur Agrawal Respondent By : Sh. Senthil Kumaran

For Appellant: Sh. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Sh. Senthil Kumaran

Services. 7.1 The TPO agreed with the assessee's TP Study Report to the extent that Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’) was the most appropriate method to determine the arm’s length price for its international transaction pertaining to this activity. A.Y. 2010-11 Page 6 of 36 7.2 Based ... well within range. 8. The TPO considering the updated study accepted the selection of the tested parties and also the most appropriate method, however, he issued a Show Cause Notice to the assessee requiring it to explain why the three comparables finally relied upon by the assessee

DCIT 7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Tl, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1546/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmangoldman Sachs (India) Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 522, Aayakar Bhavan, 951 A, Rational House, Vs M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Room No. 522, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, Vs 951 A, Rational House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate Sh. M. Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

because losses have been noticed in some year by itself is not a specific ground to seek its exclusion where TNMM is the most appropriate method accepted by the parties to determine the arm’s length price of the transaction. Considering the precedent and the facts, the comparable