<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (4) TMI 253 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751072</link>
    <description>The ITAT Mumbai upheld CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of transfer pricing adjustment where assessee&#039;s profit level indicator (PLI) of 6.12% exceeded comparable companies&#039; average PLI of 5.41% under Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). Despite AO&#039;s objection to inclusion of low-margin comparables (1-2%), ITAT found no functional incomparability established. The assessee had adopted TNMM as most appropriate method in subsequent years, validating CIT(A)&#039;s approach. Revenue&#039;s challenge regarding fresh comparables introduced before CIT(A) was rejected as functional comparability remained intact. No arm&#039;s length price adjustment warranted when assessee&#039;s margins exceeded comparable range.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2024 10:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 253 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751072</link>
      <description>The ITAT Mumbai upheld CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of transfer pricing adjustment where assessee&#039;s profit level indicator (PLI) of 6.12% exceeded comparable companies&#039; average PLI of 5.41% under Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). Despite AO&#039;s objection to inclusion of low-margin comparables (1-2%), ITAT found no functional incomparability established. The assessee had adopted TNMM as most appropriate method in subsequent years, validating CIT(A)&#039;s approach. Revenue&#039;s challenge regarding fresh comparables introduced before CIT(A) was rejected as functional comparability remained intact. No arm&#039;s length price adjustment warranted when assessee&#039;s margins exceeded comparable range.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751072</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>