https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345806 HC held that the CIT(A) correctly agreed that transactions in both Class I and II segments were to be benchmarked using TNMM, and the ITAT erred in stating otherwise and in wrongly finding that RPM was approved for Class II. The court found no change in the assessee's functional profile between AY 2004-05 and subsequent AYs (2007-08 to 2010-11), noting that the TPO accepted the assessee's TP study for those years. Consequently, HC declined Revenue's plea to assume a change in business profile and refused to remit the matter, deeming remand unnecessary and wasteful. en-us Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Oct 2025 13:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345806 HC held that the CIT(A) correctly agreed that transactions in both Class I and II segments were to be benchmarked using TNMM, and the ITAT erred in stating otherwise and in wrongly finding that RPM was approved for Class II. The court found no change in the assessee's functional profile between AY 2004-05 and subsequent AYs (2007-08 to 2010-11), noting that the TPO accepted the assessee's TP study for those years. Consequently, HC declined Revenue's plea to assume a change in business profile and refused to remit the matter, deeming remand unnecessary and wasteful. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345806