“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

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

with respect to justification of ALP of Royalty transaction. 3.5 The Learned TPO and learned AO erred in interpreting that Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) was applied for justification of ALP of Royalty transaction. 4 Imputed Cost 4.1 The learned TPO and learned AO grossly erred in law and facts ... 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

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

used for No. Enterpris l assessee determinin e Transaction g ALP by the assessee 1 Red Hat Royalty as Payment 5,35,86,13 TNMM Inc., USA per Lincese 5/- and Services Agreement 2 Red Hat Provision of Receipt 83,76,55,7 TNMM Inc., USA ITeS ... India Private Limited 3 Red Hat Provision of Receipt 20,94,13,9 TNMM Limited, ITeS 45/- Ireland 4 Red Hat Provision of Receipt 55,82,40,1 TNMM Inc., USA Software 45/- Development Services 5 Red Hat Service Fees Payment 90,65,99,5 TNMM

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

without undertaking any analysis benchmarking exercise using comparability analysis. 11. Rejection of 11.1. The lower authorities erred in holding that the IS Charges and TNMM corporate service charges shall be benchmarking separately under method the CUP method and in rejecting the aggregation approach adopted by the Appellant under the TNMM ... form of carrying out 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

M/S. Praxair India Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2209/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

aggregated the transaction of payment of royalty with certain Page 3 of 25 other transactions and benchmarked on application of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The assessee concluded the international transaction of payment of royalty at 4% as being at arm’s length. In respect of the transaction of payment

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)

full cost plus mark-up basis. This transaction was benchmarked by the assessee using Transactional Net M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited Margin Method (TNMM) considering the AE as the tested party and since the mark-up charge of 3% / 5% was less than the comparables mark ... assessee in its 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

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

certification services to AE as well as non-AEs. For the purpose of determining the ALP, the method adopted was Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM). The assessee had chosen comparable companies IT(TP)A Nos.574, 378/Bang/2015 655/Bang/2016 C.O. No.127/Bang/2015 Page 14 of 61 rendering certification services and compared their profit ... Transfer Pricing Study (TP 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

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

pertaining to software development 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

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

replicas, even when the law and the 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 ... plea of the Revenue in the remaining grounds of appeal 3 to 8 are that in the matter of determination of ALP under the TNMM method, exact comparability should not be insisted upon. As far as the aforesaid ground of appeal of the Revenue is concerned, we find that

Asus India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 9 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7831/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 194CSection 40

under:- S. No Nature of Transaction Amount (in Rs.) Method adopted 1 Import of finished goods 1231,86,01,503 TNMM 2 Purchase of marketing 1,09,02,602 TNMM samples 3 Purchase allowance 2,44,79,179 TNMM 4 Import of fixed assets 18,98,605 Other method ... Provision of marketing 3,62,61,509 TNMM support service fees 5.6. As could be seen from the business of the assessee, as stated supra, while undertaking distribution activity, the assessee also provides 18 M/s. Asus India Pvt. Ltd., Marketing Support Services to its AE for which the assessee

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. D A Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Assessing Officer and CO of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1971/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Da Jhaveri, Income Tax-19(1), C Tower, C.C 5073, Bharat 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Diamond Bourse, Bandra (E), Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafd0295J Co No. 120/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1971/Mum/2017 For Assessment Year 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Da Jhaveri, Income Tax-19(1), C Tower, C.C 5073, Bharat 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Diamond Bourse, Bandra (E), Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiro Rai, Ar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pinisetty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty, DR

Section 271GSection 91CSection 92Section 920Section 92C(1)

correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271G by holding that the assessee had made substantial compliance, failing to note that under TNMM adopted by the assessee, the profit of the international transaction has to be furnished, whereas the assessee has only furnished the entity level margins which consists ... those international transactions. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer asked assessee to furnish the details and documents in respect of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) to workout profitability of associate enterprises and non-associated enterprises. The assessee expressed his inability to submit the same in view of the practical difficulties between

Intelenet Global Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6948/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

office service income of Rs.1,19,30,049/- during the year under consideration. The assessee benchmarked this transaction by using Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM). This method was accepted by the ld. TPO. The profit level indicator (PLI) adopted by the assessee was operating

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)

Transfer Pricing Study (TP 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 ... Length. 4. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to whom the determination of ALP was referred to by the AO, accepted TNMM as the MAM and also used the same PLI for comparison i.e., OP/OC. He also selected comparable companies from database. The TPO accepted some companies chosen by the Assessee

Yash Jwellery P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1733/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Amod PrabhudesaiFor Respondent: Shri Tajinder Pal Singh

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Associated Enterprises: Method Sr. Nature of international Amount (Rs.) Adopted by No. transaction assessee Sale of studded jewellery to 1. 67,88,27,131 TNMM Jewel America Inc. USA Sale of studded jewellery to 2. 32,19,65,831 TNMM Barjon Jewellery Inc., USA Purchase of Colour stones, Cut & Polished ... Diamonds, 3. Findings, Gold, Silver and 1,44,222 TNMM Stored from Jewel America Inc. USA. Total: 100,09,37,184 8. The Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the TPO”) vide order dated 25.10.2016 passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act noted that export receipts were received

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

case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the 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 ... noted that the 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

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

appeal The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred 1. in law and in facts in not considering TNMM documentation and benchmarking as submitted and discussed by your appellant. The Learned TPO and Hon'ble DRP erred in law and on facts ... independent Chartered Accountant. The Learned TPO and Hon'ble DRP erred in law and on facts by not considering the Internal 3. TNMM, as submitted by your appellant before the DRP. The Learned TPO and Hon'ble DRP has erred in law and on facts in holding that transfer

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

Investment Research and Advisory 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

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)

provision of Information Technology enabled services to its AE and in re-computing the arm's length price under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), inter alia, on following grounds: a) Inappropriate rejection of certain comparable companies by the learned TPO identified by the Appellant in its transfer pricing study ... under consideration, the company has entered into the following international transactions with its Associated Enterprises: Provision of Investment banking Rs 149,429,101 (Receipt TNMM services for services) Rs 1 34,450,732 (Payment for services) 2 Investment advisory and support Rs 511,629,884 TNMM services in respect