“tested party”

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

assessee had earned lower margin in the case of export to these two AEs. For the purpose of benchmarking, assessee had taken AE as tested party and selected Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as Most Appropriate Method (MAM) to benchmark the transaction by taking OP/Sales as Profit Level Indicator ... rejected assessee’s stand of taking AE as the tested party and considered GPL India (assessee) as the tested party. 4.1. Contention of the assessee is that it is a manufacturer who owns the IP of the products sold to the two AEs namely, Glenmark Nigeria and Glenmark Czech. Based

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

assessee had earned lower margin in the case of export to these two AEs. For the purpose of benchmarking, assessee had taken AE as tested party and selected Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as Most Appropriate Method (MAM) to benchmark the transaction by taking OP/Sales as Profit Level Indicator ... rejected assessee’s stand of taking AE as the tested party and considered GPL India (assessee) as the tested party. 4.1. Contention of the assessee is that it is a manufacturer who owns the IP of the products sold to the two AEs namely, Glenmark Nigeria and Glenmark Czech. Based

ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASR MULTIMETALS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals for all the assessment years filed by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Asr Multimetals Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 6(1)(2), Mumbai Vs 202, Steel Center, Iron Market, Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Mumbai – 400009. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. [Pan No. Aaeca9439L] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Sunil Talathi, Ca (Virtually Present) Revenue By Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the assessee for selecting power consuming unit as a tested party and rejecting TPO's act of selecting the power generating company as tested party for benchmarking of Specified Domestic Transactions of inter unit transfer

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. BP INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), P B No 19411, Mumbai Vs. Technopolis Knowledge Park, Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 276/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income P B No 19411, Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mumbai Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan & Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Cas Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit (A) 55, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1076574916(1), Dated 30/05/2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit - 9(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(3)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.04.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2

Employee cost filter-'a filter which neither has been used by the TPO for selection/rejection of comparables, nor has been applied to the assessee (tested party), while conducting transfer pricing analysis in the case?" 3. "Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 13(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result assesse appeal stands allowed and revenue appeal stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

total turnover Para 11.6 11.6 parity) 4. Retention of revenue by overseas subsidiaries (Singapore & Discussion in Netherlands) Para 8.1 to 8.8 5. Selection of tested party & TP 9.4 benchmarking approach 6. Benefit of ±5% tolerance range u/s Discussion in 9.6 92C(2) para 9.5 7. Discussion in Notional interest

ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result assesse appeal stands allowed and revenue appeal stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

total turnover Para 11.6 11.6 parity) 4. Retention of revenue by overseas subsidiaries (Singapore & Discussion in Netherlands) Para 8.1 to 8.8 5. Selection of tested party & TP 9.4 benchmarking approach 6. Benefit of ±5% tolerance range u/s Discussion in 9.6 92C(2) para 9.5 7. Discussion in Notional interest

DCIT-13(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result assesse appeal stands allowed and revenue appeal stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

total turnover Para 11.6 11.6 parity) 4. Retention of revenue by overseas subsidiaries (Singapore & Discussion in Netherlands) Para 8.1 to 8.8 5. Selection of tested party & TP 9.4 benchmarking approach 6. Benefit of ±5% tolerance range u/s Discussion in 9.6 92C(2) para 9.5 7. Discussion in Notional interest

ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT RANGE 13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result assesse appeal stands allowed and revenue appeal stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

total turnover Para 11.6 11.6 parity) 4. Retention of revenue by overseas subsidiaries (Singapore & Discussion in Netherlands) Para 8.1 to 8.8 5. Selection of tested party & TP 9.4 benchmarking approach 6. Benefit of ±5% tolerance range u/s Discussion in 9.6 92C(2) para 9.5 7. Discussion in Notional interest

ACIT-13(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result assesse appeal stands allowed and revenue appeal stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

total turnover Para 11.6 11.6 parity) 4. Retention of revenue by overseas subsidiaries (Singapore & Discussion in Netherlands) Para 8.1 to 8.8 5. Selection of tested party & TP 9.4 benchmarking approach 6. Benefit of ±5% tolerance range u/s Discussion in 9.6 92C(2) para 9.5 7. Discussion in Notional interest

ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS I-FLEX SOLUTIONS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-8(2), MUMBAI

In the result assesse appeal stands allowed and revenue appeal stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

total turnover Para 11.6 11.6 parity) 4. Retention of revenue by overseas subsidiaries (Singapore & Discussion in Netherlands) Para 8.1 to 8.8 5. Selection of tested party & TP 9.4 benchmarking approach 6. Benefit of ±5% tolerance range u/s Discussion in 9.6 92C(2) para 9.5 7. Discussion in Notional interest

DCIT-13(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed and\nappeal of the assessee stands allowed

nstudy report, resulting in upholding of TP adjustment to the extent of Rs.\n255,428,000.\n3.4 After accepting the Appellant as the tested party, the learned CIT(A)\nought to have relied upon benchmarking carried out by the appellant in the\nTransfer Pricing Study. However, the CIT(A) erred ... marketing support services abroad for the\nproducts and services of the assessee and that comparability, if assessee\nperforming complex functions is taken as tested party, would lead to\nskewed and suboptimal results compared to that for AEs performing simple\nfunctions and hence, in such circumstances, it is always advisable

ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed and\nappeal of the assessee stands allowed

nstudy report, resulting in upholding of TP adjustment to the extent of Rs.\n255,428,000.\n3.4 After accepting the Appellant as the tested party, the learned CIT(A)\nought to have relied upon benchmarking carried out by the appellant in the\nTransfer Pricing Study. However, the CIT(A) erred ... marketing support services abroad for the\nproducts and services of the assessee and that comparability, if assessee\nperforming complex functions is taken as tested party, would lead to\nskewed and suboptimal results compared to that for AEs performing simple\nfunctions and hence, in such circumstances, it is always advisable

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. DNJ CREATION LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing)

selection of functionally similar comparables as that of the assessee by the Ld.TPO based on the TNMM Method and considering jewellery division as tested party as the assessee failed to provide actual details of profit margin of Diamond division. 2 Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case ... which is the subject matter of dispute in the present appeal. The dispute basically arising on account of three issues; No. 1 selection of tested party, which is subject matter of ground No. 1 to 3 revenue’s appeal and No. 2 considering transaction of the DNJ creation Private Limited

UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2015–16 and 2016–17 are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Unilever India Dcit Central Exports Limited, Circle-5(2), Unilever House, B. D. Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Sawant Marg, Floor, Kautilya Chakala, Andheri Bhawan, C-41 To C- East, Sahar P & T 43, G Block, Bandra Colony, S. O. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 099 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aaaci0991D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarphekara/W Shri Harsh Shah & Shri Shreyas Sardesai, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2026

that comparable companies must also derive 75 percent or more revenue from exports does not align with the functional and risk profile of the tested party. The export filter, as applied, is not demonstrated to be economically relevant to margin determination. - Fourthly, in several instances, companies have been rejected ... contention that in a limited-risk cost- plus model, export intensity of a third-party comparable does not alter its profitability expectation unless the tested party bears export-related risks. No such risk has been demonstrated.Moreover, the record shows that when the TPO himself proposed a fresh set of comparables

UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

that comparable\ncompanies must also derive 75 percent or more revenue\nfrom exports does not align with the functional and risk\nprofile of the tested party. The export filter, as applied, is not\ndemonstrated to be economically relevant to margin\ndetermination.\nFourthly, in several instances, companies have been rejected ... contention that in a limited-risk cost-\nplus model, export intensity of a third-party comparable does not\nalter its profitability expectation unless the tested party bears\nexport-related risks. No such risk has been\ndemonstrated.Moreover, the record shows that when the TPO\nhimself proposed a fresh set of comparables

FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

this transaction by adopting Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) with profit level indicator (PLI) of operating profit/operating cost (OP/OC) and taking assessee as the tested party. By taking six comparables for the benchmarking of this transaction, 6 FirstRand Bank Limited AY 2018-19 assessee arrived at arm’s length margin

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Australia & New Zealand Deputy Commissioner Of Banking Group Ltd. Income-Tax – 1(1)(2), Unit A, Sixth Floor, Mumbai Cnergy Centre, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 (Pan : Aaica3008P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order Dated 04.09.2018 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground 1: Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Relating To Processing Fees Received On Account Of Guarantees Issued To Indian Companies Based On Counter-Guarantee From Overseas Branches

very very negligible due to reduced time span involved therein. Given these undisputed facts, it would be appropriate to consider assessee as the tested party as it would be the least complex entity and its profitability could be reliably ascertained. Admittedly, the transaction which requires to be benchmarked