← 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

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 40A(2)

class of associated persons, functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed etc. 7. The assessee selected TNMM as the "most appropriate method" is not disputed by the revenue. The Ld.AR submitted that the TNMM considers the net profit margin earned by an organization. Adjustments are made to the net profits ... calculated the ALP in regard to royalty payment determined under TNMM of Rs.154.54 crores however, no separate adjustment of royalty has been proposed by the TPO since the TNMM was adopted at NTT level which includes royalty also. The ld.DRP also expressed his opinion that the TPO has not proposed

DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Cactus Communication Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1491/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Pratik ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

diminishing revenue and abnormal profits without appreciating that not a singular factor but a broad level functional comparability needs to be seen under TNMM. M/s. Excel Infoways Ltd qualifies as a comparable in FAR analysis, The Ld CIT(A) erred in overlooking that some parameters on higher end of spectrum ... institutional clients worldwide. The Appellant has, selected its AE as a tested party for benchmarking the international transactions using Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM). The TPO rejected the foreign AE as tested party and taking the Appellant as a tested ITA. No. 1491/Mum/2022 & CO No. 134/Mum/2022 Assessment Years

Abbott India Ltd (As Successor to Solvay Pharma India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1705/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Abott India Limited Addl. Cit-Range 7(2) Unit 3-4, Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Vs. Marg, Mumbai-400 071. Mumbai-400 020 Pan No. Aaacu 9269 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

March 2007. 3:2 The learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in rejecting the application of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method used by the assessee for benchmarking the International transactions in respect of imports of APIs from its Associated Enterprise (AEs). Further ... learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the CUP method and thereby not appreciating the facts and reasoning as to why TNMM should not be treated as the most appropriate method in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 3:6 Further the Commissioner of Income

Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 282/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92C(3)Section 92DSection 9A(3)

that these are routine operating expenses incurred by the company for its operational activities, and does not affect comparability as such. Besides under the TNMM, the net profit margins are compared and there is no requirement to make item to item comparison of expenses of the enterprises. Thus ... tune of Rs.49.43 million, which constituted meagre 0.28% of total revenue and thus it is insignificant to materially affect comparability or profitability. Besides, under TNMM methodology, there is no requirement to make item to item comparable analysis of expenditure. Hence, these pleas were rejected

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 211/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

Computer programmers and software developers share a similar work atmosphere. Both roles lean heavily on problem-solving ability, teamwork, planning and communication. Under the TNMM, functional similarity is more relevant than product similarity. Accordingly, TPO's action of selecting this comparable was upheld by the Ld. DRP. Against this assessee

Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 209/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 209/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Applied Materials India Pvt. Ltd., Unit -5, 3Rd Floor, The Deputy Explorer Building, Commissioner Of International Tech Income Tax, Park, Circle – 1(1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaeca2635C Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

Ld.TPO noted that assessee computed its margin by using OP/OC as PLI at 11.09% for software development service segment. Assessee had used TNMM as most appropriate method for benchmarking the transaction. In the TP study, assessee had used 7 comparables with an average margin of 10.91% and thus held ... exclude L&T as a comparable on the grounds inter alia that this comparable was chosen by the taxpayer itself and in case of TNMM applied for benchmarking the international transactions minor dissimilarities are not to be taken into account; that the taxpayer cannot be taken as a captive entity

Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 404/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 92BSection 92C

replies thereto had been considered while concluding the proceedings. 6.3 The lower authorities have erred in: a. Adopting Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method. Without prejudice, the learned TPO has erred in not adopting internal comparables under TNMM. b. Adopting inappropriate filters like 25% RPT filter ... received by assessee which was done based on internal comparables. The Ld.TPO instead carried out new TP analysis based on external comparables by adopting TNMM as the most appropriate method. The Ld.TPO considered 9 companies and proposed the TP adjustment. The Ld.TPO considered the entity level margin of the assessee

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)

third party customers from Indian exporters/vendors to compute the appellant’s profit is unjustified. This Court is of opinion that to apply the TNMM, the assessee’s net profit margin realized from international transactions had to be calculated only with reference to cost incurred ... consideration or imputation of cost incurred by third parties or unrelated enterprises to compute the assessee’s net profit margin for application of the TNMM. Rule 10B(1)(e) recognizes that "the net profit margin realized by the enterprise from an international transaction entered into with an associated enterprise

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Astra Zenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 446/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)

third party customers from Indian exporters/vendors to compute the appellant’s profit is unjustified. This Court is of opinion that to apply the TNMM, the assessee’s net profit margin realized from international transactions had to be calculated only with reference to cost incurred ... consideration or imputation of cost incurred by third parties or unrelated enterprises to compute the assessee’s net profit margin for application of the TNMM. Rule 10B(1)(e) recognizes that "the net profit margin realized by the enterprise from an international transaction entered into with an associated enterprise

Torrecid India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Circle-3(3) (1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Torrecid India Private Limited Income Tax Circle-3(3)(1) Flat No. 29,30,31, Gidc, Savli, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 Alidra, Vadodara, Vs. 020 Gujarat-391775 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcl4860B Assessee By : Shri. Sagar Sawhney. Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Srar Date Of Hearing: 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Sagar SawhneyFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta SRAR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

transactional net margin method was considered as the most appropriate method and therefore, same should be applied. Assessee was asked to show cause why TNMM should not be taken as most appropriate method . Torrecid India Private Limited.; A.Y.2017-18 Assessee objected but the ld. TPO rejected the same. The ld. Transfer ... most appropriate method or not. The revenue is consistently relying on its finding for Torrecid India Private Limited.; A.Y.2017-18 A.Y. 2013-14 holding that TNMM is the most appropriate method rejecting assessee’s claim of Resale Price method as most appropriate method. . We find that co-ordinate bench

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, 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 ... median of 25.64%. 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.The TPO worked out the average arithmetic mean of their profit margins of the 13 comparable

Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80G

income of the relevant assessment year.] 53. According to the above rule use of multiple year data would be used in the cases where TNMM, RPM or CPM is used as the most appropriate method to benchmark the transaction. The rule provides that where data for current year ... considered opinion, these are factually distinguishable and thus, we reject argument advanced by Ld.AR. 23.8. Alternatively, it has been argued that in TNMM, working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and loans and advances to associated enterprise would amount to double taxation

M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1695/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1695/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sartorius Stedim India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 69/2 & 69/3, Commissioner Of Kunigal Road, Income Tax, Jakkasandra, Circle – 6(1)(1), Nelamangala, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 562 123. Pan: Aabcs7591Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Assessee By Ca : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Revenue By Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 20/05/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law. Transfer Pricing - General Grounds 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao & Tpo In: A) Making A Reference For The Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price Of The International Transactions To The Tpo

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain

industry, as against the assessee, that is manufacturing filters for pharmaceutical and food processing industry. 8.3 The Ld.DR submitted that as assessee is using TNMM as the most appropriate method, a broad classification will not prejudice the assessee as the comparables selected by the TPO are also into manufacturing ... automotive industry whereas assessee is manufacturing filters that are used in pharmaceutical and food processing industries. 8.6 Although it is correct that while adopting TNMM as the most appropriate method, only profit based comparison is made however, the start point for every comparison is the product which is the subject

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

Ld.TPO noted that assessee (Infosys Consulting India Ltd.) computed the net margins at 16.41% from the income earned from software consultancy services. It used TNMM as the most appropriate method and OP/OC as PLI. This was held to be at arms length based on 9 comparables selected by the assessee

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3317/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

with the various services provided by latter. The CIT(A) / TPO erred in law and facts by rejecting the Transactional 2.3 Net Margin Method (“TNMM”) analysis undertaken by the appellant and sought to analyze the said transaction independently instead of adopting the aggregation approach. The CIT(A) /TPO ought ... Total 34,80,71,222 The assessee has clubbed all the international transactions and applied Transactional Net margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking the International Transactions. Gist of TPO’s Order : 10.5 For AY 2011-12 the TPO rejected the TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method for benchmarking the International Transaction

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3316/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

with the various services provided by latter. The CIT(A) / TPO erred in law and facts by rejecting the Transactional 2.3 Net Margin Method (“TNMM”) analysis undertaken by the appellant and sought to analyze the said transaction independently instead of adopting the aggregation approach. The CIT(A) /TPO ought ... Total 34,80,71,222 The assessee has clubbed all the international transactions and applied Transactional Net margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking the International Transactions. Gist of TPO’s Order : 10.5 For AY 2011-12 the TPO rejected the TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method for benchmarking the International Transaction

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3315/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

with the various services provided by latter. The CIT(A) / TPO erred in law and facts by rejecting the Transactional 2.3 Net Margin Method (“TNMM”) analysis undertaken by the appellant and sought to analyze the said transaction independently instead of adopting the aggregation approach. The CIT(A) /TPO ought ... Total 34,80,71,222 The assessee has clubbed all the international transactions and applied Transactional Net margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking the International Transactions. Gist of TPO’s Order : 10.5 For AY 2011-12 the TPO rejected the TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method for benchmarking the International Transaction

M/S. Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 199/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

justification of ALP of payment towards royalty using TNMM as provided in the TP Report and erred in not appreciating the fact that OECD guidelines and the Tribunal rulings have approved of aggregation of closely linked transactions by applying TNMM. 7. The learned AO has erred in considering the Transfer ... payment towards technical service fee using TNMM as provided in the TP Report. e. Erred in not appreciating the fact that OECD guidelines and the Tribunal rulings have approved of aggregation of closely linked transactions by applying TNMM. f. Erred in determining the arm's length price of payment towards

M/S Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3336/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

justification of ALP of payment towards royalty using TNMM as provided in the TP Report and erred in not appreciating the fact that OECD guidelines and the Tribunal rulings have approved of aggregation of closely linked transactions by applying TNMM. 7. The learned AO has erred in considering the Transfer ... payment towards technical service fee using TNMM as provided in the TP Report. e. Erred in not appreciating the fact that OECD guidelines and the Tribunal rulings have approved of aggregation of closely linked transactions by applying TNMM. f. Erred in determining the arm's length price of payment towards

M/S. Tricom Infotech Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3) (1), `Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2129/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Tricom Infotech Solutions Ltd 2Nd Floor, Tricom House, Dcit 3(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Gandhi Estate, Andheri Kurla Vs. Road, Safed Pool, Andheri Road, Mumbai- 400 020 (E) Mumbai- 400 072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg8618E Assessee By : Shri. Reepal G. Tralshawala. Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing: 06.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal G. TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

Mumbai [ the ld. TPO] for verification of ALP. 05. Assessee benchmarked these transactions,Considering, assessee as tested party adopting transactional net margin method [ TNMM] as the most appropriate method by computing profit level indicator [ PLI] of operating M/s Tricom Infotech Solutions Ltd.:A.Y. 2012-13 profit/operating cost (OP/OC) selecting