| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3206 (Pune-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 92C
Where ALP was determined by TPO by not applying any method at all or by choosing a method not prescribed under section 92C(1), then such a determination of ALP frustrated transfer pricing addition.
|
Transfer pricing - Determination of ALP - Non-application of MAM -
TPO determined ALP of international transactions involving Research and Development fees and Management fees at Nil without applying most appropriate method. Held: TPO had to confine himself to one of the prescribed methods for determination of ALP of international transaction, for which mechanism has been prescribed in rule 10B. Since ALP was determined by TPO by not applying any method at all or by choosing a method not prescribed under section 92C(1), then such a determination of ALP frustrated transfer pricing addition.
Followed:CIT v. M/s. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (2017) 80 taxmann.com 269 (Bom) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1841 (Bom-HC)CIT v. M/s. Merck Ltd. (2016) 73 taxmann.com 23 (Bom) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3970 (Bom-HC) INA Bearings India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 108 taxmann.com 198 (Pune-Trib.) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 4893 (Pune-Trib)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2011-12 to 2013-14
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 35(2AB)
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|