“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

Aslam Kassam Merchant, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4695/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2015-16 Aslam Kassam Merchant, Income Tax Officer, 85, Ground Floor, Ward-20(1)(2), Victoria Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Mustafa Bazar, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400010. Pan : Aefpm5272D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pravin B. Shetty For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-10-2025 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 26-05-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Pravin B. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

pronounced in the open court on 27-10-2025 [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 27-10-2025 TNMM 8 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

Juniper Networks Solution India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC Itd, New Delhi

In the result, ground no 3 raised by the assessee is allowed in its favour

ITA 4400/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Juniper Networks Solution India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assessment Unit, Unit No.Iia, 06Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Nfac Itd, Parliament Street, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaecj1345A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Shri Sandeep Bhalla, Advocate Shri Anurag Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.07.2024 Passed By The Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

margin on entity level for TNM Method, which included profit from trading and service businesses. The TPO rejected the claim and however accepted the TNMM. He proceeded to split the trading segment results from the combine results as under: Amount (in Cr. As per assessee As per TPO (Trading + Service ... views to finalise the bench marking. After considering the various objections of the assessee on the segment carved out, ALP methodology, allocation key proposed, TNMM over RPM, application of quantitative filters and arithmetic error in margins, working capital adjustments and risk adjustments and comparable selection. After considering the submissions

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, . Circle-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8361/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K,. Jadav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Agreement to pay royalty fee @ 0.35% of Net services revenues. The assessee benchmarked the transaction using CUP as the most appropriate method and TNMM at entity level. The assessee benchmarked the transaction with three comparables as under:- Licensor Licensee Rate Jeanmichel Ultrastrip systems 2.00 % Cousteau ocean Inc. future society ... NetTalk.com OmniReliant Inc. 1% Harnishfeger Morris material 075% Technologies Inc. handling 4.3 The ldAO/TPO rejected the TNMM method and held that 'Essar' has no brand recognition and alleged that Assessee has not substantiated any benefit derived from use of the said trademark and therefore, payment of royalty for Essar

Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 6857/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270ASection 40

insulation. 15. For benchmarking its international transaction of payment of distribution fee to its Associated Enterprises, Netflix India applied the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) under section 92C of the Income Tax Act, using Operating Profit/Operating Revenue (OP/OR) as the Profit Level Indicator ... platform on licence from its AEs and was required to pay royalty or licence fees for the same. 25. The TPO therefore rejected the TNMM adopted in the Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR). He observed that the assessee's comparables largely software and hardware distributors were inappropriate because Netflix India

Michael Page International Recruitment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6748/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 37Section 41Section 92D

length. Before the TPO, the Assessee relied upon primary benchmarking study where AEs were considered as tested party; and Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) were considered as a Most Appropriate Method with Operating Profit to Total Operating Cost as Profit Level Indicator (PLI). The Assessee also provide corroborative benchmarking taking ... Assessee as the tested party; TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method with Operating Profits to Sales as PLI. However, the TPO, not being convinced. Rejecting the contentions of the Assessee, the TPO concluded that the Assessee had not been able to substantiate the need for the IGS, the benefits derived

Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly Known As Allscripts (India) LLP), Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 92C(1)

assessee earned an operating margin of 15.25% from these services. For benchmarking the international transaction, the assessee adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method with Operating Profit/Operating Cost as the Profit Level Indicator. In its transfer pricing study, the assessee had selected eight comparables ... development services exclusively to its Associated Enterprise and earning an operating margin of 15.25%. For benchmarking, it had applied the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and selected eight comparables, arriving at an arm’s length margin of 5.98% to 7.32%. I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 11 M/s. Altera Digital

Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions Ag, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Transfer Pricing Circle -4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3621/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarthyssenkrupp Industrial V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Solutions Ag बनाम Income Tax,Transfer Pricing C/O Mohinder Puri & Co., 1A- Circle – 4(2)(2), Air India D, Vandhna Building, 11 Building, Nariman Point, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – Mumbai–400021, Maharashtra 110 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp5301B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. J.Amalsadwala,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR)

Section 271GSection 273BSection 92DSection 92D(1)Section 92D(3)

Bench in the case of Ankit Gems (P) Ltd. 106 taxmann.com 243 has held that "where TPO had accepted benchmarking done by assessee under TNMM and no variation / adjustment was made by him to ALP imposition of penalty u/s.271G would be unsustainable. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras

Schneider Electric Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), C. R. Building, Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly

ITA 5589/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22 Schneider Electric Private Vs Dcit, Limited, Circle 22(2), C-56, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Delhi. Phase-2, West Delhi, Delhi – 110 064. Pan: Abacs1671F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms Tanya, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.10.2024 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Ay 2021-22. 2. Heard & Perused The Records. On The Basis Of Submission & Material On Record It Comes Up That Assesse/ Appellant (Sepl) Was Incorporated In 2018 As A Subsidiary Of Schneider Electric Industries Sas (A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Schneider Electric Se) & Belgium. It Is A Private Limited Company

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Transactional Net Operating Profit Provision of Business support 7.44% 8.09% to 16.52% 1 Margin Method /Operating Cost services (“TNMM”) (“OP/OC”) 22.10% to Provision of Contract and 2 TNMM OP/OC 12.23% 51,17,20,000 R&D services 28.14% Comparable 3 Intra Group Services (IGS) Uncontrolled Price Not Applicable

Assimilate Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle, 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is dismissed

ITA 5357/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassimilate Solutions India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Circle 1 (1), Chartered Accountants, New Delhi. C – 763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan :Aakca4501H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharam Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2021-22 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. M/S. Assimilate Solutions India Private Limited, The Assessee Was Incorporated On 19.04,2012 & Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

Tupperware India Private Limited, Connaught Place New Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Through Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ip Estate New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly

ITA 4475/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92BSection 92C

through the summary of economic analysis available at page 266 of the paper book. The ld. counsel has also submitted that the aggregated TNMM approach has not been disregarded by the TPO while passing its TP order. Reliance was placed on the tribunal judgement of the in the case