TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 541
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have erred, in making transfer pricing adjustment of INR 151,57,42,646/- to the value of international transactions in respect of payment of management fees to its Associate Enterprise ('AE') i.e. NTT Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. ('NTT Asia'). 1.2. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. TPO/Ld. AO have erred in law by considering management fees paid as a separate class of transaction and segregating it for the benchmarking purpose. 1.3. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. TPO/Ld. AO have erred in rejecting the TNMM analysis adopted by the Appellant to benchmark management fees paid and have also failed to demonstrate how the CUP/Other Method is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transaction and alleging that the provisions of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 have been contravened. 1.4. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. TPO/Ld. AO have erred in facts and law in not considering or ignoring the detailed analysis and evidence presented by the Appellant as regards the benefits received by the Appellant towards the management services availed from its AE and rejecting such detailed analysis of the Appellant without providing proper justification. 1.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Ld. TPO/Ld. AO have erred, in making transfer pricing adjustment of INR 6,47,80,141/- to the value of international transactions in respect of payment of regional services to its Associate Enterprise ('AE') i.e. NTT Global Shared Services Center Asia Pacific SdnBhd ('NTT GSSC'). 2.2. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. TPO/Ld. AO have erred in law by considering regional services as a separate class of transaction and segregating it for the benchmarking purpose. 2.3. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. TPO/Ld. AO have erred in law by rejecting the TNMM analysis. undertaken by the appellant taking AE as tested party to benchmark its international transactions and have failed to demonstrate how the Other Method is the most appropriate method 2.4. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. TPO/Ld. AO have erred in facts and law by applying the same rationale as was applied in Management fees by not considering or not appreciating the evidence presented by the assessee as regards the benefits received by the assessee towards the regional services availed from its AE 2.5. The Hon'ble DRP have also erred in disallowing regional servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pricing adjustment has been deleted by Tribunal, copies of such decisions are already placed on record. While explaining the facts, the ld AR of the assessee submits that Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) suggested transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 151,57,42,646/-on account of payment of Management Fees. The appellant-assessee is engaged in the trading of networking products and in providing related services such as training, maintenance, installation, consultancy, facility management, outsourcing and systems integration the area of information communications systems, and computer networking. The business activities of the assessee are accepted by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on page 1 of his order. The appellant-assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 166.32 crores as management fee to its Associated Enterprise (AE), in consideration of providing various services in the field of business development, corporate communication, brand management, human resources, information technology, finance etc. The T.P.O. assessing officer (A.O.) has made an adjustment of Rs. 151.57 crores, which has been upheld by the Ld. DRP. The assessee has entered into agreement dated 01stApril 2014 with its Asso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supported the order of TPO/AO and DRP. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on the decisions of Tribunal in assesses own for earlier assessment years. On careful consideration of the facts, we find that this issue is repetitive in earlier various assessment years. In AY 2011-12, similar adjustment / additions were suggested by TPO, which were confirmed by DRP and on further appeal before Tribunal in ITA No. 2280/Mum/2016, entire additions were deleted vide order dated 16.08.2017. The order of Tribunal in AY 2011-12 was followed in AY 2017-18 in ITA No. 722/Mum/2022 dated 04.09.2023. we find that on similar issue/ adjustment in AY 2018-19 in ITA No. 2491/Mum/2022 dated 24.06.2025, it was argued on behalf of the assessee that Bombay High Court in Merk Limited (389 ITR 70) held that the payment of management fee does not require separate benchmarking and therefore, if overall profit margin of assessee at entity level is comparable under TNMM with the comparable no adjustment is required. Even, if the management services fee requires separate benchmarking, no adjustment is requ....