← All Phrases

“transactional net margin method”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C691 judgments

The decision most relied on for transactional net margin method is Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (377 ITR 533), cited in 196 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on transactional net margin method

Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
377 ITR 533 · 2015 · High Court
196
citing judgments

Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) service providers are functionally dissimilar to Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) or Information Technology Enabled Services (ITeS) providers and cannot be compared for transfer pricing purposes, even under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). Further, companies with significantly different business models, such as those with extensive subcontracting, should be excluded as comparables.

DIT (IT) v. Morgan Stanley & Co Inc.
162 Taxmann 165 · 2007 · Supreme Court
90
citing judgments

The profits of a Permanent Establishment (PE) must be determined on the basis of what an independent enterprise would derive, using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for profit attribution. When applying TNMM, the operating profit from an international transaction should be compared with the operating profit margin of comparables.

CIT v. Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd.
381 ITR 216 · 2016 · High Court
69
citing judgments

Companies with significantly higher turnover, indicating differing functional and risk profiles, are not comparable for transfer pricing benchmarking. Such large companies must be excluded from the list of comparables when benchmarking against an assessee with a much smaller turnover.

Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT
101 Taxmann.com 313 · 2019 · ITAT
67
citing judgments

Working capital adjustments are permissible and crucial for comparability analysis when determining the arm's length price of international transactions, especially when an assessee's claim for such adjustment has been denied.

Trilogy E-Business Software India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
29 Taxmann.com 310 · 2013 · ITAT
48
citing judgments

For Transfer Pricing, this case clarifies that foreign exchange gains can be considered operating revenue for ITES providers, acknowledges the impact of offshore versus onsite development pricing on margins even when using TNMM, and affirms the use of a turnover filter for selecting comparable companies.

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.

Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
44 SOT 391 · 2011 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is preferred over indirect methods for determining the arm's length price in transfer pricing matters, especially for royalty payments.

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.

Judgments citing transactional net margin method

Primera Medical Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 381/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri PVSS Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. L. Sunitha Rao, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

transactions with its AE, determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) was referred to the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (learned TPO). Assessee adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) with OP/OC as Profit Level Indicator (PLI). Assessee’s margin was at 15.21%. By selecting 27 companies as comparables for provision

D.Light Energy Private Limited, Gurgoan vs. ACIT, Circle -7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 516/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.516/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) D Light Energy P. Ltd., Unit No. 102, Block B, Pegasus One, First Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector-53, Gurgaon 122001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabcj9318G बनाम Vs. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Hari Om Jindal, Ar "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 260 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Eight Grounds Of Appeal. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are In Respect Of A Single Issue I.E. Adjustment Of Rs. 6,94,53,296/- On Account Of International Transaction Of Purchase Of Solar Goods/Lights & Reimbursement Of Expenses & Warranty Cost Claim.

For Appellant: Shri Hari Om Jindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

impugned assessment year, the assessee has claimed loss of Rs. 9,45,78,855/- 3 4. The TPO rejected RPM and applied Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method. The TPO held that the transaction of warranty claims is clearly linked to the transaction of purchase

Inabensa Bharat Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8128/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.8128/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Inabensa Bharat P. Ltd., A-225, Double Story, Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabci0386D बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(1), C.R Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(6) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. This Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee In December 2018. Initially The Assessee Was Represented By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate. The Assessee Had Filed An Application For Early Hearing Of Appeal. The Same Was Allowed By The Tribunal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

under appeal, the assessee entered into various international transactions. To benchmark the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transactions, the assessee applied Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method. The TPO vide order dated 26.10.2017 rejected TNMM in trading segment and applied RPM as most appropriate

Satyam Venture Engineering Services Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 192/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 192/Hyd/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyam Venture Assistant Commissioner Engineering Services Vs. Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(2), Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aafcs3287D] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri E.V. Sri Krishna, ARFor Respondent: Ms. L. Sunitha Rao, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

that the assessee has been providing such services to both Associated Enterprises (AEs) and also non-Associated Enterprises (non-AEs), assessee used internal Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) by comparing the ratio of operating profit and operating cost of the AE segment with the non-AEs segment. On a perusal

Uttam Energy Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle-12, Pune

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2033/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

comparable companies without appreciating the fact that these companies are not at all comparable with the assessee company during application of external transactional net margin method. 6. The learned Assessing Officer acting under the direction: of learned Dispute Resolution Panel erred both on facts and in law in using Profit

DCIT, Circle 3(1) (1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ricardo Uk Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1410/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

deputationists deployed by MSCo and not on account of stewardship activities. As regards income attributable to the PE (MSAS) we hold that the Transactional Net Margin Method was the appropriate method for determination of the arm's length price in respect of transaction between MSCo and MSAS. We accept

DCIT Circle-3(1)(1). Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ricardo Uk Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1409/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

deputationists deployed by MSCo and not on account of stewardship activities. As regards income attributable to the PE (MSAS) we hold that the Transactional Net Margin Method was the appropriate method for determination of the arm's length price in respect of transaction between MSCo and MSAS. We accept

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Ricardo Uk Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1408/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

deputationists deployed by MSCo and not on account of stewardship activities. As regards income attributable to the PE (MSAS) we hold that the Transactional Net Margin Method was the appropriate method for determination of the arm's length price in respect of transaction between MSCo and MSAS. We accept

DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Htc India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1785/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kr. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

class of transaction etc., namely (a) comparable uncontrolled price method; (b) resale price method; (c) cost plus method; (d) profit split method; (e) transactional net margin method; (f) such other method as may be prescribed by the Board. Sub-section (2) provides that the most appropriate method referred

Takenaka India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. JCIT (OSD) Circle-25(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 5581/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Takenaka India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Cit (A)-44, First Floor, Tower-C, Vatika First New Delhi. India Place, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aadct6143P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashutosh Mohan Rastogi & Shri Dhruv Seth, Adv. Respondent By Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Cit(A)”)-44, New Delhi Dated 24.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Correctness Of The Order On Following Grounds:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

assessee submitted that the AO was not justified in making the impugned additions. He submitted that the AO grossly erred in applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (“TNMM”) instead of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP”) method for computation of ALP. Further, he contended that the AO has accepted CUP method

Imerys Ceramics India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 494/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Mithilesh Sai, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

learned AR not pressed all the grounds, except grounds relating to the issues of non-consideration of segmental information, non- consideration of TNMM (Transactional Net Margin Method) as MAM (Most Appropriate Method) for transactions related to manufacturing segment, non-consideration of RPM as MAM for transactions relating to trading segment

Tech Mahindra Buisness Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 521/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

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

Wipro Ltd. v) Informed Technologies India Ltd. He submitted that the assessee to benchmark Arms’s Length Price (ALP) of international transactions adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNNM) as the most appropriate method. The assessee identified five companies as comparables. The assessee’s OP/OC is 9.70%. The arithmetic mean

DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra Business Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1126/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

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

Wipro Ltd. v) Informed Technologies India Ltd. He submitted that the assessee to benchmark Arms’s Length Price (ALP) of international transactions adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNNM) as the most appropriate method. The assessee identified five companies as comparables. The assessee’s OP/OC is 9.70%. The arithmetic mean

R A K Ceremics India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 61/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 R.A.K. Ceramics India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, P.O Box No.11, Circle 3(1), Adb Road, Samalkot, Hyderabad. Andhra Pradesh. Pin – 53340, Pan : Aaccr6424N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Aliasagar Rampurwala, C.A. Revenue By: B. Balakrishna – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2014-15 Arises From The Assessment Order Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), Hyderabad Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 28.11.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

For Appellant: Shri Aliasagar Rampurwala, C.AFor Respondent: B. Balakrishna – CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 271BSection 92C

considered. Further, the ld. DR has drawn our attention to Rule 10B(1)(e) of the Act which is to the following effect : “Transactional Net Margin Method, By Which,- i. the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction entered into with

M/S. Atul Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms for statistical purpose

ITA 446/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Tp)A No.446/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Atul Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul House Vs Ahmedabad. Gi Patel Marg Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr.Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 92C

quashed and such adjustment be deleted. 2. Ld. DRP erred in confirming action of TPO in partially using internal CUP and partially transactional net margin method (TNMM) method without any justification. Ld. DRP ought to have quashed application of two methods by TPO and ought to have confirmed TNMM method ... international transactions with its AE’s pertaining to the sale of finished goods amounting to Rs.131,67,41,988/-. The assessee had applied transactional net margin method (TNMM) to justify this transaction as being at ALP. The TPO, however, found that in earlier years, the assessee had applied comparable uncontrolled

Culver Max Entertainment Private Lmited ( Formerly Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (Successor of Taj Television India Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7210/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Sony Pictures Networks Asst. Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income-Tax, (Successor Of Taj Television Circle 16(1) India Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Interface 7, 4Th Floor, Off Malad Room No. 467, Link Road, Malad (W), M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct5103D Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

retained by the assessee, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer proposed an adjustment of ₹2,56,08,831/-. The assessee alternatively argued for Transactional Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method in this year as well as in earlier years. Therefore, there is no reason to reject ... most appropriate method. Without prejudice to the above, he considered for these comparable selected by the assessee for benchmarking under Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), whose net profit margin arithmetical mean was derived at 3.74% and PLI of the assessee was considered at 23.85% was claimed to be at Arms

Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solution Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 739/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountαντ Μεμβer

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Page 1 ITA No.739/Mum/2022 Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solutions Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX

Dy.CIT. CC.5(2) Cent. RG. -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2574/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2574/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2356/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-Cc-5(2) बिधम/ M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd. Central Range-5, Room Arvind Vithal Gandhi Vs. No.1908, Air India Building, Chowk, Govandi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400088. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu1366N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paras Savla Shri Pratik Poddar Revenue By: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter “Ld. Cit(A)], Mumbai Dated 31.08.2020 & Order Dated 10.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Ay. 2013-14 Respectively. Since Issues In Both The Years Were The Same, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Agreed That There Is No Change Of Facts Or Position In Law Across Both These Years & Therefore Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. We Accordingly Dispose Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)
Section 115JSection 92C

transfer pricing scrutiny u/s 92CA(2) of the Act. The assessee is noted to have benchmarked the international transaction by taking Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM). The PLI of the assessee was worked out to 25.3% whereas the PLI of comparables was ascertained

Dy.CIT C C 5(2) Central RG-5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Usv Private Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2356/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2574/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2356/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-Cc-5(2) बिधम/ M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd. Central Range-5, Room Arvind Vithal Gandhi Vs. No.1908, Air India Building, Chowk, Govandi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400088. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu1366N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paras Savla Shri Pratik Poddar Revenue By: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter “Ld. Cit(A)], Mumbai Dated 31.08.2020 & Order Dated 10.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Ay. 2013-14 Respectively. Since Issues In Both The Years Were The Same, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Agreed That There Is No Change Of Facts Or Position In Law Across Both These Years & Therefore Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. We Accordingly Dispose Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)
Section 115JSection 92C

transfer pricing scrutiny u/s 92CA(2) of the Act. The assessee is noted to have benchmarked the international transaction by taking Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM). The PLI of the assessee was worked out to 25.3% whereas the PLI of comparables was ascertained

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and ground nos

ITA 1575/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Torrecid India Private Limited Income Tax- 11(3)(1) Flat No.29, 30,31, Gidc Savli, Aaykar Bhavan, Alindra, Vadodra-Gujarat Vs. Gandhinagar, Gujarat-391775 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct4321M Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Singh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Anand Perampurana, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Anand Perampurana
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 250

unjust/erroneous rejection of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") Method as the most appropriate method for purchase of raw materials and finished goods and adopting Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") for the purpose of benchmarking the international Torrecid India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 transactions between the appellant and its Associated Enterprises ... notice was issued to the assessee and after considering the reply of the assessee, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer proposed to adopt the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM), as The Most Appropriate method. Assessee, however, Torrecid India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 supported the CUP method as the most appropriate