“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

M/S. Meritor C vs. India Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 249/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

M/s.Meritor Holdings (Barbados) Ltd 28,711/- (Interest on borrowings) M/s.Meritor Inc 1,28,80,083/- ( ) (Reimbursement of expenses paid) 1.4 The assessee adopted TNMM method to justify that the transactions are at Arm’s Length. 1.5 The case was referred to TPO for determining the adjustments towards arm’s length ... considered opinion, these are factually distinguishable and thus, we reject argument advanced by Ld.AR. 17.8. Alternatively, it has been argued that in TNMM, working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and lones and advances to associated enterprise would amount to double taxation

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

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

ITA 2623/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2623/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Blue Coat Network (India) Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 1001 & 1002, The Deputy 10Th Floor, Rmz Campus Commissioner Of 8-B, Income Tax, Plot No. C-L, Sarjapur Circle – 1(1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Bangalore. Vs. Road, Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aahcs7844Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 22/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle -1 (1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 143(2)

Ld.TPO noted that the following were the international transactions undertaken by the assessee. Particulars Amt (Recd) Method Software Development 8,96,18,197 TNMM Services Marketing Support 13,66,10,710 TNMM Services Data Center Services 55,21,397 TNMM Recovery of 1,90,28,483 CUP Restructuring costs Total ... Ld.TPO observed that assessee had selected 12 comparables for software development service segment and 7 comparables for ITES segment and applied TNMM as the most appropriate method to compute the margins by using OP/TC as the PLI. Dissatisfied with the comparability analysis carried out by the assessee, the Ld.TPO applied

Interactive Brokers (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4860/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri O. P. Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. (Tp) No.2088/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Interactive Brokers (India) बिधम/ Dcit-4(1)(1) Pvt Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 502/A, Times Square, Mumbai. Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci6871R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jeet Kamdar Revenue By: Shri Pankaj Kumar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 30.01.2017 First For A.Y.2012-13 & Assessment Order Dated 23.05.2017 For A.Y.2013-14 U/S 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. We First Take Up The Appeal For Ay 2012-13. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Read As Under: - “Ground No.1 Disallowance Of Cost Of Administrative Support Services For Internal Audit Support, Clearing & Treasury Support Function 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘(Drp')/ Income Tax Officer — Dcit, Range 4(1)(1) (‘Ao’) / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Tpo’) Erred In Re-Computing The Alp Of The International Transaction Of Payment Of Administrative Support Service Fee For Internal Audit Support, Clearing & Treasury Support Function By The Appellant To Its 2

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (Sr. AR)

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

commensurate with the benefits, which accrued to the assessee. The assessee benchmarked these intra-group services by applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’) taking the assessee as 5 ITA. (TP) No.2088/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Interactive Brokers (India) Pvt. Ltd. the tested party and it was claimed that ... India) Pvt. Ltd. made in relation to payments to IBG LLC (US) was upheld by the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP however rejected the TNMM analysis undertaken by the assessee for benchmarking the overall mark-up of 10% on the administrative support services and accordingly upheld the TP adjustment

Interactive Brokers (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2088/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (Sr. AR)

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

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and Revenue is partly allowed and the cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1467/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/AmolFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kalra

para 5 of his order: - Sl. Nature of service AY 2007-08 Method used No. 1 Rendering of Contract 18,63,53,642 TNMM R&D service 2 Sale of goods/API 6,51,59,920 TNMM 3 Import of goods 2,54,025 TNMM Total ... this main activity of R&D services. The TPO therefore benchmarked all the above international transactions following the aggregate approach, and applied entity-level TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method. The TPO noted that, the assessee had selected Operating Profit/Total Cost (OP/TC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). The assessee

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Mylan Developemtnt Centre P.Ltd ( Formelry Merck Development Centre P.Ltd ), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and Revenue is partly allowed and the cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1283/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/AmolFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kalra

Lg Soft India Private 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

ITA 266/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 143(3)

took the following view:- “64. The next objection of the Assessee is that when the most appropriate method selected for determining ALP is the TNMM there is no reason as to why one should look at price difference in offshore software development and onsite software development. It is no doubt ... true that in TNMM it is only the margins in an uncontrolled transaction that is tested with reference to the controlled transaction but it is not possible to ignore the fact that pricing will have an effect on the margins obtained in a transaction. The argument that if pricing structure

M/S Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 181/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., No. 10 Brindavan, The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Yashoda Nagar Main Income Tax, Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Jakkur Plantation, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan: Aaacq0656P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahaveer C Jain, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 25/01/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer C Jain, CA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

Ld.TPO from the details filed observed that following were the international transactions: International Transactions Receivables Payables / Particulars Method / Received Paid Software 1352,43,252 TNMM development services Extended credit period for receivable 1352,43,252 TNMM (lending) Withholding from employees and payment on their 37,52,919 TNMM behalf ... Ld.TPO noted that assessee computed its margin at 11.69% by using OP/OC as the PLI and TNMM as the most appropriate method. 2.4 The Ld.TPO noted that assessee selected 16 comparables with an average margin of 9.59% and held the transaction to be at arms length. 2.5 Dissatisfied with

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

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

ITA 477/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Cost 24,65,57,982/- Business SG&A other cost Total 1,02,94,57,156/- 6. The assessee adopted Transactional Net Margin Method [TNMM] as the Most Appropriate Method [MAM] for the purpose of arriving at the ALP and the Operating Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC) is chosen as the Profit

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3033/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 10ASection 250Section 2D

Based on the functions, asset and risk analysis, nature of international transaction and availability of comparable data, assessee selected the Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM‟) as most appropriate method with Profit Level Indicator (‘PLI‟) of net cost plus markup. Further, associated enterprise was selected as a tested party

M/S. Sulzer Tech India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt./ Dy./ Asstt. CIT/ Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 633/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Saeana a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

requisite training by the associated enterprises and given access to the relevant database. For benchmarking this transaction, the assessee used Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM‟) as the most appropriate method with Profit Level Indicator (‘PLI‟) of operating profit to M/s. Sulzer Tech India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.633/Mum./2021 total expenses

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Climate Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 729/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Enterprise (AE) S No Nature of international Amount (Rs.) Method adopted by transaction Assessee 1 Income from service provided for 4,93,16,224 TNMM installation / commissioning of chillers 2 Import of tools for servicing of 2,01,60,127 TNMM chillers and BAS equipment 3 Sale of finished goods ... spare parts) 1,43,80,118 TNMM under warranty charged back to the AE 4 Import of consumables and spare 8,80,62,239 TNMM parts 5 Cost contribution 45,11,845 TNMM 6 Reimbursement of expenses 10,72,445 TNMM 7 Purchase of traded goods

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Technologies and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 728/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

year under consideration S No Nature of international Amount (Rs.) Method adopted by transaction Appellant 1 Sale of finished goods 23,17,16,797 TNMM 2 Recovery of expenses 5,49,42,770 At cost 3 Purchase of raw materials 8,88,85,546 TNMM 4 Purchase of finished goods ... TNMM 5 Cost contribution on account of 2,68,18,518 TNMM management consultancy 6 Service income 82,12,36,529 TNMM 7 Purchase of tools for testing 17,06,470 TNMM purposes 8 Payment towards technical 1,36,61,615 TNMM consultancy 9 Purchase of fixed assets

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7076/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Circle 11(3)(1) Torrecid India Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Plot No.29, 30, 31, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Alindra, Savli Gidc, Vadodara, Vadodara–391775 Mk Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct 4321 M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neelu Jaggi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

action of the ld. AO/ld. TPO in rejecting the Resale Price Method (RPM) considered by the Appellant and selecting the Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") method, as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction of import of finished goods for distribution without providing any cogent reasons ... assessee, the Dispute Resolution Panel held that the Transfer Pricing Officer is right in rejecting foreign Associated Enterprises as tested party. For selection of TNMM as the most appropriate method by the TPO, where assessee has selected resale price method as the most appropriate method, for import of traded goods

Thyssenkrupp Industiral Solutions (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H. Jamshedji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 40

During the year under consideration, assessee entered into following international transactions with its associated enterprises: Sl. Method Transaction F.Y. 2010–11 No. TNMM Purchase of equipments and 438958240 1. Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1274/Mum./2016 its part Provision of Engineering TNMM 415695135 2. service (Received) Availing ... Engineering TNMM 194056575 3. service (Received) Availing of Deputation of TNMM 9787046 4. Personnel (Payment) Availing of Email Services TNMM 938407 5. (Payment) 11514563 TNMM Royalty 6. Availing of software licenses TNMM 18152538 7. (Payment) TNMM Availing of guarantee 6160800 8. IT Support services 22445815 9. Purchase of Book

Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As J M Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2320/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 40A(2)

trades entered into between the Appellant and the AES. 1.2 In not accepting the Appellant's contention of applying Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) on overall basis as the most appropriate method for determining the ALP for trades executed with the AES. 1.3 In not accepting the Appellant's contention ... amounting to Rs. 35,54,824/-. The assessee aggregated all the transactions and adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), as the most appropriate method, benchmarked along with other ITA Nos.2206 &2320/Mum2011 Morgan Stanley India Co. P. Ltd; A.Y. 05-06 transactions which are not in dispute, submitted that all international

Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2206/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 40A(2)

Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 321/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

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

fact, by not appreciating that once the net margin is tested for arm's length price under Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") method (including administrative fees paid to Cisco India), it presupposes that the various items of income and expenditure considered in the process of arriving ... /AO. Further that all these expenses incurred by assessee towards administrative expenses and sales and marketing expenses stands subsumed in the operating expenses under TNMM for computing the arm’s length margin of the international transaction, a separate benchmarking may not be necessary. However all these things deserves verification

M/S. Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 606/BANG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., No. 138, Export It(Tp)A No. Promotion Industrial 2008-09 606/Bang/2021 Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P The Joint M/S. Sap Labs India Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, (Successor To M/S. Special Range – 6, Success Factors Bangalore. Business Solutions It(Tp)A No. India Pvt. Ltd.), 2015-16 2510/Bang/2019 No. 138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA

Section 3(1)(b)

Payment towards software welfare, legal & professional 81029605 and IT Support charges 6.3 Assessee computed its margin at 11.88% by using OP/OC as PLI and TNMM as the most appropriate method. The assessee used 12 comparables in respect of SWD segment, with an average margin of 15.24%. The assessee treated ... software activity and low-end activity so long as it falls within the purview of software development services. It was observed that under TNMM, such differences are tolerable and there is no requirement that services for activities performed are identical. It is informed that the services are similar and fall

M/S. Success Factors Business Solutions India Private Limited (Now Merged With Sap Labs India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 2510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA

Section 3(1)(b)