“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

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 303/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessment years are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th April, 2022 (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bengaluru, Dated: 11th April, 2022 TNMM Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru 4. The Pr.CIT(Central), Bengaluru 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru

M/S Jaysons Infrastructure India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 403/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 80I

allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th April, 2022 (GEORGE GEORGE K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bengaluru, Dated: 11th April, 2022 TNMM :- 9 -: ITA Nos.402 & 403/Bang/2019 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)-9, Bengaluru 4. The Pr.CIT-4, Bengaluru

M/S Jaysons Infrastructure India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 402/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 80I

M/S. Biocon Research Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2612/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)

separate international transaction and carried out transfer pricing adjustment by imputing notional interest on the said receivables. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the TNMM method adopted by the assessee combined with working capital adjustment would take care of loss, if any arising from extended credit given to the A.E. Accordingly

Xerox Business Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 361/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 144C(6)Section 92C

Software AG Bangalore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and therefore we are inclined to delete the negative working capital adjustment. In determining ALP under TNMM, the correct approach would be to look at the costs incurred by the assessee only and should not impute any additional cost as done by TPO, which

M/S.Tokai Rika Minda India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2327/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2327/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Tokai Rika Minda India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Plot No.365, Sompura 1St Stage Kiadb Industrial Area Dobbaspet, Nelamangala Taluk Bangalore Rural Dist – 562 111. Pan : Aadct0271C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

mainly engaged in manufacturing key sets and locks to automotive industry. The assessee has manufacturing facility. The assessee in its TP study, has adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method. The assessee has arrived at set of 2 comparable companies with an average OPM of 2.80% viz-a-viz that ... comparable selection, we observe that the DRP has not properly analyse the submissions of the Assessee. The DRP has made general observation that TNMM 5 IT(TP)A No.2327/Bang/2016. M/s.Tokai Rika Minda India Private Limited. requires broadly similar comparables and exactly similar companies are not required. This is not proper

Asst.CIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Xerox Business Services of India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 202/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 144C(6)Section 92C

Mr. Krishnakumar Narayanswamy Yelahanka, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(3)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 582/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm Mr.Krishnakumar Income Tax Officer, Narayanaswamy Yelahanka, Ward-6(3)(3), #959, Vinayaka Nilaya, Bengaluru Vs. Vollalinagara Street, Yelahanka, Bengaluru Pan – Aabpy4989M Appellant Respondent : Shri V.Srinivasan, Adv. Assessee By Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 07-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-04-2022

For Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasan, Adv

Section 133ASection 148Section 234

assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th April, 2022 (GEORGE GEORGE K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bengaluru, Dated: 7th April, 2022 TNMM :- 10 -: Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)-6, Bengaluru 4. The Pr.CIT, Bengaluru 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru 6. Guard

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1650/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT–DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90Section 91

parties. Based on the functional analysis presented in the TP report, the assessee has selected itself as a tested party, Transactional Net Margin Method (―TNMM‖) as the most appropriate method with OP/OC as profit level indicator (―PLI‖) for benchmarking receipts from A.Es. for provision of software, technical and consultancy services

M/S Embassy Inn Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2781/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm Embassy Inn Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner 1St Floor, Of Income Tax, Embassy Point, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), 150 Infantry Rod, Bengaluru Bengluru Pan – Aaocs2145R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 57Section 57(3)

allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th April, 2022 (GEORGE GEORGE K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bengaluru, Dated: 6th April, 2022 TNMM Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)-4, Bengaluru 4. The Pr.CIT-4, Bengaluru 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru

Credit Suisse Consulting (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

619/Mum/2014

ITA 619/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

assessee to its associated enterprises (AEs) are as under:- Particulars SI. Amount Method No. 119,977,878 Provision of investment advisory and TNMM 1. support services in relation to strategic investments in Indian companies 1,586,445 2 Provision of information services TNMM 3 Provision of support services ... TNMM outsourced services 4 Provision of liaison support services 18,068.180 TNMM 5 Provision for support services in relation 1,056,683 TNMM to knowledge process outsourcing activities 6 Reimbursement of salary costs 42,659,971 NA 3.1. It is not in dispute that assessee provides non-binding investment advisory

Sri. Suhas Suresh Shet, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 608/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th April, 2022 (GEORGE GEORGE K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bengaluru, Dated: 5th April, 2022 TNMM :- 10 -: IT(IT)A Nos.607 & 608/Bang/2021 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)-12, Bengaluru 4. The ITO (Intl.Taxn.), Ward

Sri. Suhas Suresh Shet, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 607/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

M/S. Akkayya Hospitality Services (Formerly Known As Akkayya Consultancy Services), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2545/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm M/S.Akkayya Hospitality Assistant Commissioner Of Services, Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Akkayya Presently Circle-1[2][1], Consultancy Services), Vs. Bmtc Building, No.21/6, Craig Park Layout, 80 Feet Road, 6Th Block, M.G.Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Aaafz1935B Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Sri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By: Smt.Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 04.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.04.2022 O R D E R Per George Geroge K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)-1, Bengaluru’S Order Dated 26-09-2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2008-09. 2. The Solitary Issue Argued By The Ld.Ar Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Deleting The Entire Disallowance Of Interest Expenditure Made By The Ao (Disallowance Of Interest Expendtiure Made By Ao Rs.3,65,13,949/-).

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)

filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 5th April, 2022 (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Bengaluru, Dated: 5th April, 2022 TNMM 5 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) -1, Bengaluru 4. The Pr. CIT - 1, Bengaluru 5. The DR, ITAT

Newedge Broker India Pvt Ltd. Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 606/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

order of the ld. TPO, the assessee had indeed carried out benchmarking analysis by comparing comparable companies by using Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and we further find that the ld. DRP in para 3.6 of its directions had resorted to adopt Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) as the Most Appropriate ... adopted in this case did not bother to bring in comparable instances to determine the ALP using CUP whereas the assessee has adopted TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method and had benchmarked the same by bringing in the comparable companies and had benchmarked the same. No error was found

Newedge Broker India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 605/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Iss Facility Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms of aforesaid

ITA 411/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.411/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2013-14) Iss Facility Services India Private Limited The Qube, B 401/404 & A 402 Behind Taj Stats, Village Marol Sahar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 059 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aabc13815M बनाम/Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 10(1)(2) Room No. 14, 20Th Floor, Air India Building, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: Shri. M.P. Lohia with Shri. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Services India Private Limited Sl.No3). As per transfer pricing report, assessee, inter-alia, benchmarked the aforesaid two transactions by applying Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM’) as Most Appropriate Method (‘MAM’) by treating its associated enterprise (‘AE’), i.e. ISS World Services A/S, Denmark, as a tested party. The Assessee selected ... Payment of Management Service Fees and Payment of Global Client Management Fee. In respect of the aforesaid two impugned transactions, TPO didn’t accept TNMM analysis conducted by assessee and concluded that since no services were rendered by associated enterprise to assessee hence, no payment was required to be made

Newedge Broker India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1254/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

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

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly

ITA 2870/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 9Th Floor Prestige Of Income-Tax Thirulakshmi Vs. Circle-3(1)(1) No.11 M.G. Road Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 001 Pan No : Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Respondent By : D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 92C

shares 270000000 Recovery of expenses 1878563 Trade receivables 370266108 Trade payables 9002024 Receivables 1878563 Payables 3523261 5. The Ld.TPO noted that assessee used TNMM as most appropriate method to bench mark the software development & Marketing support services to the AE. Assessee used OP/OC as PLI and computed its margin ... assessee wherein internal CUP was used to bench mark the international transaction. The Ld.TPO applied various filters and shortlisted following comparables. The Ld.TPO used TNMM as most appropriate method and OP/OC as PLI to compute the average margin of 20.9%. Unadjusted SI. No. Company Name OP/OC

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

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

ITA 3363/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3363/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Tyco Fire & The Assistant Security India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of D-601, Rmz Contennial, Income Tax, Kundalahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct0087C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Dated October 26, 2018 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 20, 2018 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Drp") U/S 144C (5) Of The Act (`The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA

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

erred in law and in facts, by rejecting the separate economic analysis as undertaken by the Appellant to benchmark management services transaction basis TNMM and adopting the *Other Method' as per Rule 10B(1)(f) of the Rules to be the most appropriate method. 25. Without prejudice to the above ... assessee is compensated on a cost plus 15% basis. 8. The assessee benchmarked Software development services segment by adopting Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') and arrived at a set of following 10 comparables with an average margin of 12.08%. Sl. Name of the Company Margin No (M/s.) (%) 1 Akshay Software