← All Phrases

“TNMM”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C2,208 judgments

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

Leading authorities on TNMM

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.

Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT
381 ITR 227 · 2016 · High Court
127
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction must be established before its arm's length price can be determined. An alleged 'excessive' AMP expenditure cannot unilaterally expand the scope of an international transaction if its existence is contested.

SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
44 SOT 156 · 2011 · ITAT
100
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuation gains or losses are operational in nature and must be included in the computation of the operating margin for both the assessee and comparable companies when determining the Arm's Length Price.

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.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. ACIT
68 Taxmann.com 322 · 2016 · High Court
55
citing judgments

When benchmarking export transactions, the Associated Enterprise (AE) can be considered the tested party if it possesses the least complex functional analysis. The Assessing Officer's acceptance of a methodology in prior years can also support its use.

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.

Capital IQ Information Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
32 Taxmann.com 21 · 2013 · ITAT
44
citing judgments

A change in depreciation policy impacts an entity's profitability, which is a key factor in assessing its suitability as a comparable company for transfer pricing analysis.

Electronic for Imaging (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
85 Taxmann.com 124 · 2017 · ITAT
38
citing judgments

Comparability of a company for transfer pricing purposes must be decided afresh by the TPO after considering the facts recorded in prior tribunal decisions. The tribunal may direct exclusion of comparable companies based on such prior decisions.

Judgments citing TNMM

Schneider Electric It Business India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1585/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr Divya K J, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80G

undertaken by the assessee is of contract manufacturing, solution business and distribution activities. The assessee has entered into several international transactions and adopted the TNMM as the most appropriate method adopting Profit Level Indicator of Operating Profit/Operating Cost ratio. The ld. TPO examined the TP Study Report and stated that ... working capital is required. According to Rule 10B(e)(iii), it is the duty of the person who works out the ALP by adopting TNMM to adjust the net profit margin to take into account the differences, if any, which would materially affect the amount of net profit margin

Snf (India) Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 204/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Jun 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited Dcit - Circle – 3(1) 19 Jnpc, Ramky Pharmacity Income Tax Office Paravada, Visakhapatnam – 531021 Infinity Towers, Sankarmat Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

transactions as under: - Margin Margin of Nature of transaction Amount (Rs.) MAM PLI of comparables taxpayer Purchase of various 1,58,00,29,851/- TNMM OP/OR 3.92% 3.57% to 6.85% types of polymers and other raw materials Purchase of traded 2,93,18,412 TNMM OP/OR ... goods Sale of finished goods 2,18,49,019 TNMM OP/OR 3.92% 3.57% to 6.85% Page. No 4 I.T.A.Nos.204, 209 & 210/VIZ/2025 M/s. SNF (India) Private Limited Margin Margin of Nature of transaction Amount (Rs.) MAM PLI of comparables taxpayer Purchase of capital 13,99,27,452 Other

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

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

ITA 9205/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

used by Amount in Rs. Assessee 1 Purchase of Parent seeds 1,10,19,86,129/- 2 Provision of seeds 1,51,23,609/- TNMM conditioning and storage services 3 Sale of seeds 12,96,45,761/- 4 Reimbursement 3,98,70,234/- expenses from AEs Other Method 5 Reimbursement ... engineering TNMM design and PLI: OP/TC related services Provision of FAS 4.57 Method: 15.00% 10 14.37% PLI: OP/TC Provision of IT 5.50 Method: 17.56% 4 17.26% infrastructure TNMM support services PLI: OP/TC Reimbursement 0.07 Method: of expenses TNMM (paid) PLI: OP/TC Not applicable Reimbursement 21.97 Method: of expenses TNMM (received

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

ITA 7375/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘T’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

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

ITA 1575/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

Assessee 1 Purchase of Parent seeds 1,10,19,86,129/- 2 Provision of seeds 1,51,23,609/- conditioning and storage TNMM services 3 Sale of seeds 12,96,45,761/- 4 Reimbursement expenses from AEs 3,98,70,234/- Other Method 5 Reimbursement expenses ... design and related services Method: TNMM PLI: OP/TC 13.04% 6 11.79% 2 Provision of FAS 4.57 Method: 15.00% 10 14.37% services 3 Provision of IT 5.50 infrastructure support services Method: TNMM PLI: OP/TC 17.56% 4 17.26% 4 Reimbursement 0.07 of expenses (paid) Method: TNMM PLI: OP/TC Not applicable 5 Reimbursement

Dcm Shriram Limited, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 5560/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

assessee is in relation to transfer pricing adjustment on sale of hybrid seeds to AEs. The assessee has benchmarked the transactions by using TNMM as most appropriate method with its Profit lever indicator (PLI) [operating profits / operating cost] at 8.50%. The TPO has rejected the approach of the assessee ... Considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the assessee while computing the ALP, followed the TNMM with OP/OC as most appropriate method for ascertaining the ALP of sale of Hybrid seeds and the margin was shown at 8.50 %. It is relevant

Kandivali Dattani Gram No.3 Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd, Kandivali West vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(3), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 534/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2014-15 Kandivali Dattani Gram No.3 Income Tax Officer-42(1)(3), Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Kautilya Bhavan, Hemu Kalani Cross Road No.3, Vs. G Block, Kandivali West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400067. Bandra East, Pan : Arkps1535K Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Karan VakhariaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P

pronounced in the open court on 17-03-2026 [MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 17-03-2026 TNMM Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asst

Kamini Velmurugan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 478/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2016-17 Kamini Velmurugan, Income Tax Officer, 18/369, Rajeshwari Chs, Ward-42(2)(3), Subhasnagar, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Agzpn9256A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Sailee Gujarathi For Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 19-11-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Vide Order Dt. 12-12-2023, Wherein The Ao Has Brought To Tax A Sum Of Rs. 42,50,000/- As Short Term Capital Gains U/S. 45 Of The Act In Absence Of Any Explanation/Evidences Submitted By The Assessee In Respect Of Sale Of Immoveable Property As Well As Cost Of Acquisition. The 2 Assessee Thereafter Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Since Dismissed The Appeal On Account Of Delayed Filing & Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Ms. Sailee GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 45Section 45(1)

pronounced in the open court on 17-03-2026. [MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 17-03-2026 TNMM 5 Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asst

Sanjay Shamrao Sawant, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 469/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2016-17 Sanjay Shamrao Sawant, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. B-3/701, 7Th Floor, Ward-35(3)(1), [Presently – Ito, Ward-42(3)(3)] Millenium Towers, Vs. Mumbai. Near Ryan School, Sector-9, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan : Bdyps3261H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-Kochi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 18-09-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Was Any Adjournment Application Filed. However, Considering The Matter, We Find That No Useful Purpose Would Be Served In Adjourning The Matter Any Further & To Decide The Matter Based On Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

pronounced in the open court on 17-03-2026 [MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 17-03-2026 TNMM 4 Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asst

Mahalaxmi Continental Limited, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer (DCIT/ACIT Cir-1), Guwahati

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 54/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 250Section 92B

assessee. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) noted that the Transfer Pricing Officer has followed Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method and rightly made the adjustments by selecting suitable comparables considering the size and nature of business of comparables as against the Comparable Uncontrolled ... addition of Rs. 50,64,220/-. It is observed from records that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) in respect of the concerned transactions. The TPO had proposed downward adjustment of Rs. 1,45,08,356/-and the same amount was added back

Mahalaxmi Continental Limited, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer (DCIT/ACIT Cir-1), Guwahati

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 53/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 250Section 92B

assessee. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) noted that the Transfer Pricing Officer has followed Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method and rightly made the adjustments by selecting suitable comparables considering the size and nature of business of comparables as against the Comparable Uncontrolled ... addition of Rs. 50,64,220/-. It is observed from records that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) in respect of the concerned transactions. The TPO had proposed downward adjustment of Rs. 1,45,08,356/-and the same amount was added back

Merit Data and Technology Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 4(1) Chennai, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 958/CHNY/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.958/Chny/2026 & Sa No.74/Chny/2026 (Arises In Ita No.958/Chny/2026) िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S. Merit Data & Technology Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward-4(1), Sp 52, 3Rd Street, Ambattur Industrial Chennai. Estate S.O., Ambattur, Tiruvallur – 600 058. Pan: Aadcl 8191M

For Appellant: Mr. K. Prasanna, C.A )*For Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(3)

revenue from IT enabled services. The TPO further held that Bizsense is passing all other filters and that strict comparability is not mandated under TNMM. We further notice that the DRP while considering the objections of the assessee with regard to the above comparable has held that: “2. Bizense Solutions

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Analog Devices India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2074/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar & Shri Nirmal MathewFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT (DR)
Section 250

services and Marketing and Sales Support Activities (MSS) to its AEs. The assessee benchmarked its international transactions under SWD Segment & MSS Segment by adopting TNMM as the most appropriate method. The assessee worked out the PLI as OP/TC for both segments, which arrived at 10.89% and 10.12% respectively ... buyer and seller and therefore comparability and the guidance note on transfer pricing issued by ICAI in para 5.50 which states under TNMM where margins are to be compared, the margin of a 1,000 crore company cannot be compared with that of a 10 crore company. The two most

DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

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 of taking

DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

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 of taking

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Bp India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4907/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), P B No 19411, Mumbai Vs. Technopolis Knowledge Park, Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 276/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income P B No 19411, Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mumbai Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan & Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Cas Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit (A) 55, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1076574916(1), Dated 30/05/2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit - 9(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(3)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.04.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan and Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

appreciating the selection of functionally similar comparables as that of the assessee and making the adjustment by the ld.TPO, based on the TNMM Method." 2. a) "Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) is erred by relying on the stand

Girgaon Vijayshree Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 457/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

ITA No. 457/Mum/2026 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “J-SMC” BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT

Mrs. Parnal Nishant Mehar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8389/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Chetan JaiswalFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)

pronounced in the open court on 09-03-2026 [SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 09-03-2026 TNMM Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asst

Parnal Nishant Mehar, Maharashtra vs. AO Ward 42(3)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8264/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Chetan JaiswalFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)

dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 09-03-2026 Sd/- [SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL] JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 09-03-2026 TNMM Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file Sd/- [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] ACCOUNΤΑΝΤ

Grant Road (W) Omkar Co-Operative Housing Soc Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 260/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “H-SMC” BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI