“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

Howden Solyvent (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 732/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kripalani (Advocate) &For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar- CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 43B

Human resources etc. The payee charged the same to the assessee at markup of 10%. The assessee, using entity level Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), offered no Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment in its own TP study Report. During the course of hearing, the assessee was directed to submit evidences ... Upon perusal of assessee’ submissions, the Ld. TPO alleged that no services were received by the assessee. The Ld. TPO also held that TNMM was to be rejected and Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was to be adopted as most appropriate method (MAM) since combining all AE transactions and benchmarking

Dhl Logistics Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 553/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 234Section 234BSection 271ASection 27oSection 920

enable consideration or imputation of cost incurred by third parties or unrelated enterprises to compute the assesse‟s „net profit‟ margin for application of TNMM. Rule 10B(1)(e) provides that the „net profit‟ margin realized by the enterprise from an international transaction entered into with ... Delhi in the case of LI and Fung India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 361 ITR 85 (Del), had observed, that for applying the TNMM the assesse‟s net profit margin realised from the international transactions had to be calculated only with reference to the cost incurred

Aker Powergas P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 15(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2213/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 92C

appellant with the Central Board of Direct Taxes CCBDT'). 1.4 The learned DCIT / DRP has erred in rejecting Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") selected by the Appellant in its transfer pricing study report for benchmarking the transaction of payment of management charges and failed to appreciate that the management charges

ACIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jacob Engineering India P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3700/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-10(2)(1), M/S. Worley India Pvt. R.No.216-A, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Jacobs Engineering India M.K. Road, Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Ramkrishna Mandir Road, Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaach0456J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.R. &For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 92C

services rendered by the aforesaid companies are high end/ non comparable services, with significant R&D activities in case of EIL. Rejection of internal TNMM analysis prepared based on audited segmental accounts 6. erred in rejecting/ disregarding the comparability analysis of the Assessee presented in its transfer pricing documentation, wherein ... detailed economic analysis has been undertaken to benchmark impugned international transaction. 7. erred in rejecting the Internal Transactional Net Margin (Internal TNMM') of 14.29% earned by the Assessee in the AE segment vis-a vis 5.59% in the non AE segment by providing said services, and adopting the External TNMM

M/S. Biesse Manufacturing Company Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 338/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri, Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 92C

study, the assessee has entered into several international transactions with its AE. In the manufacturing segment, the assessee followed the TNMM as the most appropriate method and operating Profit/Operating Cost is considered as the Profit Level Indicator. The financials of the manufacturing segment as per the TP study

M/S. Mindtree Limited (Successor in Interest to M/S. Aztecsoft Limited), Bengaluru vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on Ground nos

ITA 269/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

For Respondent: Shri Tata Krishna

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 153Section 153(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

similar facts the Learned TPO had accepted the existence of international transaction (i.e., marketing fee paid to AE) and determined the ALP under TNMM. 5.5.8. Without prejudice to the above, if according to TPO, no services are rendered by Aztec Inc to the Appellant, the question of determination

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

ITA 3357/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

directed to consider only the operating margin of the AE segment of international transaction of manufacturing segment while determining the ALP considering the internal TNMM analysis, instead the external TNMM analysis, which is an error. Therefore, para 32 of the said orders is modified and substituted to read as under ... consider only the operating margin of the AE segment of international transaction of manufacturing segment while determining the ALP considering the external TNMM analysis where the AE segment is the tested party.” ( N V VASUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 26th October, 2022. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant

Integra Software Services P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 736/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) for Shri. S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (JCIT) / Shri. Kumar Ajeet Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43(5)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

have any borrowings from external sources and therefore, it was not required to pay any interest. Further, Ld. TPO having chosen TNMM method erred in making further adjustment for interest on overdue receivable since the application of TNMM would take care of the same. Lastly, the assessee advanced loans

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Inventurus Knowledge Soltions P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing

ITA 2403/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabci 5573 J Co No. 249/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 2403/Mum/2018 For A.Y. 2011–12) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Sc Tiwari/ Ms Umamagswari M, Ars Revenue By : Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri SC Tiwari/For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92C

should be. Moreover, the assessee has provided single year date during course of proceedings before Transfer Pricing Officer. Here method to be adopted is TNMM and broad comparability is sufficient. Hence, I hold that the Transfer Pricing Officer has wrong in not holding IKS Inc as not tested party

Dover India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 460/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.460/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Dover India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Bagmane Laurel, 1St Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Block C, Bagmane Tech Park, Bengaluru. C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aaaci 3920 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 29.03.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Providing Software Development Services (Swd Services), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

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. 5. 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/TC. He also selected comparable companies from database. The TPO on his own identified 20 companies

Medreich Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 451/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 451/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Medreich Ltd., No. 12/8, Medreich The Assistant House, Commissioner Of Saraswati Ammal Income Tax, Street, Central Circle – Maruti Seva Nagar, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 033. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm1458Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Acit, Central Circle – 1(2), Bangalore Dated 26/04/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1.1 The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore (`A0') Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act) In The Manner Passed

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

Rules, 1962. 4.3 The learned TPO and Hon'ble DRP failed to appreciate that: a) when the primary transaction has already been benchmarked using TNMM and the transaction relating to outstanding receivables cannot be benchmarked separately; b) no interest was charged to non-AE's for similar transactions ... case of delay. He also argued that the working capital adjustment takes into account the factors related to delayed receivables as assessee adopted TNMM as the MAM for computing its margin, and therefore no separate adjustment is required to be made. 9. On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR submitted that, interest

Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 350/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Rs.2,98,36,64,473/- from its AE in respect of the software development services provided. The Assessee had selected Transaction Net Margin Method (“TNMM”) as the Most Appropriate Method (“MAM”) and operating profit / operating cost is the Profit Level Indicator. The assessee had computed the margin ... segment was treated at arm’s length 7. The TPO rejected the TP study and conducted fresh analysis. He agreed with the Assessee that TNMM was to be applied as the MAM. The TPO has characterized the Assessee as a captive service provider which assumes minimal risk associated with

Mfx Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 251/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144B

tribunal against the final order of assessment passed in pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 4. The assessee adopted transfer net margin method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method. The operating profit and operating cost has been taken as the profit level indicated in TNMM analysis. For the purpose ... when the determination of ‘ALP’ is done under the MAM being resale price method (‘RPM’), cost plus method (‘CPM’) or transactional net margin method (‘TNMM’). The relevant provisions of Rule 10CA of the Rules, in so far as it relates to choice of comparable companies, read as follows

Parexel International Clinical Research Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 189/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Parexel International Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd., Cowrks, Rmz The Assistant Ecoworld, Ground Commissioner Of Floor, Bay Area- Income Tax, Adjacent To Building Circle 5(1)(2), 6A, Outer Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aadcp9318C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandini Shah, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 26/03/2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Chandini Shah, CA

Section 92C

189/Bang/2021 costs). The international transactions undertaken by the assessee were benchmarked using the Transactional Net Margin Method (`TNMM.) and adopting the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of Operating Profit / Total Cost (OP/TC). 2.3. The assessee conducted a detailed search for comparable companies and arrived at a set of 5 companies whose ... aforesaid decision clearly lays down the proposition that working capital adjustment is to be given effect to while determining ALP while adopting TNMM method. Respectfully following the said decision, we allow this issue in favour of the assessee.” Respectfully following the above, we direct the Ld.AO/TPO to compute

M/.S Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed in respect of the issues argued and considered hereinabove

ITA 2595/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner Of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aaccn1140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29/10/2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate

Section 143(2)

software development services provided, the assessee had computed the margin at 11.18 percent on operating cost. The assessee selected Transaction Net Margin Method ("TNMM") as the Most Appropriate Method ("MAM") and selected a set of 11 comparable companies with median of 11.18 percent with 35th to 65th percentile range ... OP/OC 35th Percentile 8.50 Median 11.18 65th Percentile 14.87 Page 7 of 51 IT(TP)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 2.4 The Ld.TPO agreed with the TNMM as the most appropriate method however, rejected the method of computation of margin by the assessee. The Ld.TPO applied fresh filters as under

M/S. Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2577/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

educations ESSP contribution 39150370 39150370 remittance Free of cost goods 4910810 4910810 (assessable value) 7. The assessee has applied Transactional Net Margin Method [TNMM] as the most appropriate method. The Operating Profit to IT(TP)A No.2577/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 27 Operating Cost ratio has been taken as the Profit

Lloyds Offshore Global Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are partly allowed

ITA 194/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

between a controlled and an uncontrolled transaction. ii. As per Rule 10B(1)(e), the manner of computation under the Transactional Net Margin Method (“TNMM”) clearly mandates comparison of the net margin (after adjustment, if any) between the comparable companies and the Appellant. Thus, in undertaking such a comparison

M/S. Lloyds Offshore Global Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are partly allowed

ITA 27/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt./Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessmetnt Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1224/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 69CSection 92C(1)

Appellant with its Associated Enterprise ("AE") was not at arm's length. 1:2 The learned AO/TPO/DRP erred in rejecting Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") which was determined by the Appellant as the most appropriate method as per provisions of section 92C(1) of the Act. 1: 3 The Appellant ... 15th October, 2019. The assessee filed its TP study and Hon’ble Bench marking approach adopted by the assessee. The assessee adopted of TNMM as MAM related to transaction of export of goods amounting to Rs. 20,00,44,704/- but the TPO rejected the method of TP study

Frost & Sullivan (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7899/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Frost & Sullivan (I) P. Ltd. Tax, Tower Vi, Iv Floor, Solitaire Central Circle 8(1), Corporate Park, Chakala, Vs. Andheri (E) Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacf4252A Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2022

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

respect of the market analysis services provided by the CP division has been rejected on totally untenable grounds and the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM'), which is not the most appropriate method under the circumstances, has been adopted. (d) the appellant's comparison has been made with entities having totally