“transactional net margin method”

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

case of export to these two AEs. For the purpose of benchmarking, assessee had taken AE as tested party and selected Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as Most Appropriate Method (MAM) to benchmark the transaction by taking OP/Sales as Profit Level Indicator (PLI). Ld. TPO rejected assessee’s stand

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

case of export to these two AEs. For the purpose of benchmarking, assessee had taken AE as tested party and selected Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as Most Appropriate Method (MAM) to benchmark the transaction by taking OP/Sales as Profit Level Indicator (PLI). Ld. TPO rejected assessee’s stand

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

disallowance made u/s\n14A.\n Assessment Year 2010-11\n6. From the Transfer Pricing study report the Ld. TPO noted that\nassessee used transactional net margin method to compute the\nmargin of the services rendered under Data Processing Service\nand Software Development Service Segment by using OP/OC as\nPLI.\nData ... nservices\n Assessment Year 2009-10\n3. From the transfer pricing study report, the Ld. TPO noted that,\nassessee used Transactional Net Margin Method as the most\nappropriate method and OP/OC as PLI to compute its margin\nunder both the segment at 18.2% and 16.7% for data processing\nand software

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

services Assessment Year 2009-10 3. From the transfer pricing study report, the Ld. TPO noted that, assessee used Transactional Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method and OP/OC as PLI to compute its margin under both the segment at 18.2% and 16.7% for data processing and software development ... disallowance made u/s 14A. Assessment Year 2010-11 6. From the Transfer Pricing study report the Ld. TPO noted that assessee used transactional net margin method to compute the margin of the services rendered under Data Processing Service and Software Development Service Segment by using OP/OC as PLI. Data Processing

DCIT-13(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 3432/Mum/2019

remitted to the assessee for execution of software development and related services. 8.3. For benchmarking the international transactions, the assessee adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method and reported a net profit margin of 22.31% for the year under consideration. The assessee treated itself

ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-13(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 3432/Mum/2019

remitted to the assessee for execution of software development and related services. 8.3. For benchmarking the international transactions, the assessee adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method and reported a net profit margin of 22.31% for the year under consideration. The assessee treated itself

UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2015–16 and 2016–17 are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Unilever India Dcit Central Exports Limited, Circle-5(2), Unilever House, B. D. Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Sawant Marg, Floor, Kautilya Chakala, Andheri Bhawan, C-41 To C- East, Sahar P & T 43, G Block, Bandra Colony, S. O. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 099 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aaaci0991D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarphekara/W Shri Harsh Shah & Shri Shreyas Sardesai, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2026

fixed return of 9.16 percent on the Associated Enterprise cost base and attributing the residual profits to the non-Associated Enterprise segment. Internal Transactional Net Margin Method (Internal TNMM) was adopted as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM), and transfer pricing adjustments were computed accordingly. 6. The assessee carried the matter ... appeal before the Tribunal. By order dated 31 March 2023, the co-ordinate Bench upheld the selection of External Transactional Net Margin Method (external TNMM) as the MAM and rejected the adoption of Internal TNMM. However, since the TPOhad not examined the comparables selected by the assessee under External TNMM

UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Australia & New Zealand Deputy Commissioner Of Banking Group Ltd. Income-Tax – 1(1)(2), Unit A, Sixth Floor, Mumbai Cnergy Centre, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 (Pan : Aaica3008P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order Dated 04.09.2018 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground 1: Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Relating To Processing Fees Received On Account Of Guarantees Issued To Indian Companies Based On Counter-Guarantee From Overseas Branches

Indian beneficiaries [based on the corresponding back to back guarantee provided by the overseas associated enterprises (AE's)]. Ground 2: Rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) used by the Appellant and adopting External Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the most appropriate method On the facts ... Mumbai relating to marketing support services provided by ANZ Mumbai to its AEs in respect of derivative products. Ground 4: Rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) used by the Appellant and adopting revenue split under Profit Split Method (PSM) method as the most appropriate method On the facts