“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

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

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

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

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

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

Goodrich Aerospace Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 566/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 566/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Goodrich Aerospace Services Pvt. Ltd., 14/1 & 15/1, The Deputy Maruthi Industrial Commissioner Of Estate, Income Tax, Phase 2, Hoody Village, Circle – 3 (1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Kr Puram, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan: Aaacb8857H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Hereinafter Taken By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. I. Transfer Pricing 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ao"), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Learned Tpo") & The Honourable Dispute

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 40Section 92BSection 92C

transaction has been tested by the TPO and has been accepted to be at arm's length while selecting the Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") during the transfer pricing proceedings after considering working capital adjustments. 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Hon'ble DRP erred ... Assembly / Manufacturing activity and Engineering Design Services to its Associated Page 3 of 9 IT(TP)A No. 566/Bang/2021 Enterprises (“AE”). The assessee adopted TNMM as the MAM for the Manufacturing segment, which was accepted by the TPO. However, the Ld.TPO imputed cost to the outstanding receivables and computed interest

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)

Trade License Fees 18,32,830 RPM 6. Technical Administrative Fees 1,83,84,448 RPM 7. Commission 4,16,78,419 TNMM 8. Issue of Share Capital 90,00,00,000 CUP Toto India Industries Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.6226/Mum./2019 5. The assessee conducted a detailed transfer pricing analysis ... only Rs.650.93 lakhs only.” 7. Accordingly, the TPO rejected the application of RPM as the most appropriate method and applied Transactional Net Margin Method (“TNMM”) for benchmarking the international transactions pertaining to purchase of finished goods and technical administrative fees. The TPO conducted an independent search for comparables and arrived

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

portfolio management solutions. 5. The assessee entered into the following international transactions with its AEs: International transaction Methodology Value(INR) adopted Software development services TNMM 20,15,45,579 Margins earned by IDS India for Financial Year (‘FY’) 2008 – 09 Particulars Total Income from Software development services ... from the AE for 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

M/S.Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 474/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.474/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Crystal Downs, Embassy Golf Links Business Circle – 3(1)(2), Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaccg 2435 N Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A

ITeS 127,78,91,238 8. It is not in dispute between the assessee and the revenue that the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) was the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determination of ALP and that the profit level indicator to be adopted for comparison of the assessee’s profit

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)

Without prejudice, the authorities below were not justified in law in rejecting the revised Transfer Pricing Study submitted by the appellant company under TNMM methodology is not in accordance with law under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.3 The authorities below ought not to have used a separate ... database (PROWESS) for conducting the TNMM study and further the authorities below failed to consider the details and database considered by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.4 The authorities below have deviated from functional analysis, OECD guidelines and other conditions which are necessary for selecting

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)

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)

Officer, to the Transfer Pricing Officer. In the 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 ... follows:- On the basis of above finding, the TPO rejected the segmental audit report. Further, he benchmarked the transition at the entity level under TNMM and then derived the Arm’s Length Adjustment as per the provisions of the section. Accordingly, the contention of the TPO is upheld

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)

regarded as constituting a 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

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

international transaction of provision of engineering consulting/ design services to AEs, the Id. AO/ TPO/ DRP have erred in their manner of applying the TNMM in determining the arm's length nature of the said international transaction. 12. Without prejudice to the contention that the Appellant is not engaged ... wherein internal CUP was 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

Amicrop Management India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 2171/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 210/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 701 & 702, The Income Tax Officer, 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Ward – 1 (1)(3), Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Bangalore. Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 2171/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Amicorp Management India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Unit No. 701 & 702, Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Campus 6B, Income Tax, Rmz Ecoworld, Sarjapur, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aafca1468C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sherry Goyal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

make any adjustment in respect of this payment amounting to Rs.1,39,78,966/-, apparently since the PLI computed under TNMM would subsume this payment also. 22. In respect of reimbursements received by the assessee from its AE, the TPO has taken the view that the assessee has utilized ... 2171/Bang/2017 transactions. Accordingly, we are of the view that the determination of ALP of transactions under TNMM is not appropriate. 24. The question that arises at this stage is as to how the international transaction of reimbursement of expenses should be bench marked. We have noticed that

Amicrop Management India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for assessment years

ITA 210/BANG/2017[2012 -2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022

For Appellant: Ms. Sherry Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

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

section 254 of the Act 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

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)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has 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 ... risk assumed in distribution activity varies from case to case rending it inappropriate in comparison. He thus rejected RPM and proceeded to adopt TNMM for benchmarking analysis. On this aspect of the matter when matter travelled in appeal, learned CIT(A) revised the stand of the TPO and observed

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

expenses charged to 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 ... Provision of ITeS 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

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

3133/Bang/2018 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

Acuity Knowledge Centre (India) Private Limited (Formerly Known As Moody'S Analytics Knowledge Services (India) Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2689/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2689/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, M/S. Acuity Knowledge Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. (Formerly Known As Moody’S Analytics Knowledge Circle – 4(1)(2), Services (India)Private Limited), Bengaluru. Elixir Chancery Building, 7Th Floor, Municipal Door #135/1-2, Residency Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Aaeca 9391 H Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayan, 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. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92

said international transaction had to be determined having regard to ALP as envisaged under section 92 of the Act. There is no dispute that TNMM was the MAM for determining ALP and that Profit Level Indicator (PLI) for the purpose of comparing assessee’s profit margin with comparable companies

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

adjustment of Rs. 225,70,105/- 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 ... that assessee does not undertake any value addition to the import of material handling equipments is not disputed by the AO. Since while applying TNMM, TPO has himself accepted these comparables therefore functional similarity of the comparable companies is not in dispute. RPM is the best method in this distribution