“TNMM”

Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

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

Transfer Pricing (TP) document furnished for the A.Y.2015-16:- International Transactions Receivables Payables Particulars Method /Received /Paid Purchase of Capital equipment 22,84,233 TNMM Purchase of consumable packing material 3,345 TNMM Received Free of charge 12,19,295 TNMM Provision of Software Development Services ... TNMM Page 5 of 24 1 Provision of Sale agent support Services 9,85,46,260 TNMM Outstanding Receivables 21,15,82,448 TNMM Reimbursement of employee 4,55,81,740 Benefit Other Method Reimbursement of provident fund 26,42,176 Other method Unbilled revenue 2,35,91,424 TNMM

Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 10(c) is allowed for statistical purposes

sourcing support services segment (refer pages 4 and 5 of the TPO’s order). The assessee adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM). The assessee selected six companies as comparables. The TPO did not dispute the TNMM adopted by the assessee. However, as regards ... computation of ALP and the adjustment made, reads as follows:- Computation of TP study done by assessee and TPO Particulars Assessee TPO Method adopted TNMM TNMM Profit level indicator Operating profit / OP/OC (PLI) operating cost (OP/OC) Comparable 6 9 companies selected Period for which data

Amc Cookware (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.429/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Amc Cookware (India) Private Limited, Vs. Ito, No.1180, 12Th B Main, 1St Cross, Hal 2Nd Ward – 1(1)(1), Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aacca 4970 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. P. Srinivas, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 30.03.2022 Passed By The Ito, Ward – 1(1)(1) Of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1962 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Only Dispute Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Determining The Shortfall In Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of An International Transaction At Rs.2,37,87,122/- & It(Tp)A No.429/Bang/2022 Page 2 Of 8

Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in rejecting the Resale Price Method (*RPM') adopted by your appellant and instead adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (`TNMM') as the most appropriate method ('MAM') to determine the arm's length price of the international transactions with its associated enterprises (**AEs") in the Distribution segment ... question of determination of ALP was referred to by the AO did not accept RPM as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM). He chose TNMM as the MAM and chose 3 comparable companies which were as follows: AVERAGE Sl. No. Company Name OP/OC 1 Hawkins Cookers Ltd. 15.00% 2 Nirlep Appliances

Arm Embedded Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

towards RSU Reimbursement of expenses paid towards Rs.5,90,21,834/- ESPP 2.4 The Ld.TPO noted that the assessee used TNMM as the most appropriate method and OP/OC as PLI to compute its margin under SWD and ITES segment. The assessee computed its margin at 11.4% for SWD segment ... 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

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

dated 08/10/2014. The TP document contained 11 comparables in respect of IT enabled services selected by the tax payer by applying certain filters and TNMM was applied as the most appropriate method. The taxpayer has selected comparables engaged in the same industry vertical as the taxpayer. 5) The Submissions filed ... pricing study had benchmarked the international transaction pertain to software development services of Rs 1492,82,63,132/ Page 8 of 42 using the TNMM method. For this the taxpayer had selected 11 comparable after conducting a search based on the functional profile of the taxpayer and applying certain qualitative

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the grounds argued by assessee and other issues that has not been pressed is kept open

finite element analysis, sourcing, marketing, and other related services, to the business units of Textron Group. 7.2 The Ld.TPO has observed that assessee applied TNMM for computing the margin of engineering design service segment at 10.59% as against 4 comparables selected by assessee that had a margin of 11.7%. Page ... average PLI of 24.22% as under: 7.4 Regarding marketing support service segment, the Ld.TPO observed that the assessee computed its margin by using TNMM At 4.58% whereas the 5 comparables selected by assessee had an average margin of 7.33%. The Ld.TPO rejected the comparables selected by assessee and short listed

Citrix R & D India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed partly as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 220/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Citrix R&D India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Prestige Dynasty, Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Income Tax, 33/2, Ulsoor Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560042. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn3639C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumit Khurana, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Mathivanan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Transfer Pricing - 2. That The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore ("Assessing Officer" Or "Learned Ao") & The Dispute Resolution Panel - 1 ("Learned Panel" Or "Learned Drp")

month LIBOR 6. Payment of interest on 75,63,742 ECB- 6 month LIBOR 2.3 The Ld.TPO noted that the assessee used TNMM as the most appropriate method and OP/TC as PLI to compute its margin under SWD and ITES segment. The assessee computed its margin ... 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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3355/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 9Th Floor, Prestige Income Tax, Thirulakshmi, Circle – 3(1)(1), No. 11, Mg Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 26/10/2018 By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “A. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao'), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Learned Tpo') & The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'Ble Drp') Grossly Erred In Adjusting The Transfer Price By Inr 9,56,93,721/- With Respect To The International

transaction between assessee and the AE. The Ld.TPO noted that following were the international transaction reported in Form 3CEB. 2.3 The assessee used the TNMM as the most appropriate method and OP/OC computed margin at 14.96% for SWD segment and 9% for MSS segment. 2.4 Assessee used 7 companies ... Ld.TPO has included this into the final list only by mentioning that the functions performed by this company are similar to assessee and under TNMM only similarities to be seen and not exact comparability. The Ld.TPO also note that the RPT of this comparable is only 3.7% however from page

M/S Praxair India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ltpu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

towards technical and support services were aggregated with certain other transactions and all the transactions were benchmarked on application of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The margin of the assessee on aggregating the transactions stood at 13.38%. Accordingly, the assessee sought to justify the Arm’s Length Price ... transaction pertaining to payment of royalty cannot be aggregated under the manufacturing operations of the Appellant with the application of Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") for the transfer pricing analysis without appreciating the fact that the principle of aggregation of closely linked transactions is a well-established rule prescribed