| |
| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 3580 (Karn-HC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 92C
The issue as to whether TPO was not right in treating arm's length price for royalty payment as 'NIL' even though the TPO clearly established that assessee had not derived any benefit out of royalty payment was no longer res integra and was covered by the decisions held in case of 'CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.' [2012 TaxPub(DT) 2071 (Del-HC)] and 'CIT v. Lever India Exporters Ltd. (2017) TaxPub(DT) 590 (Bom-HC) in favour of assessee.
|
Transfer pricing - Computation of ALP - Benchmarking of royalty payment -
Revenue filed appeal against the order of Tribunal holding that TPO was not right in treating arm's length price for royalty payment as 'NIL', even though the TPO clearly established that assessee had not derived any benefit out of royalty payment. Held: The issue involved in the present appeal was no longer res integra and was covered by the decisions of Delhi and Bombay High Courts respectively in 'CIT v. Eel Appliances Ltd.' 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2071 (Del-HC) and CIT v. Lever India Exports Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 590 (Bom-HC). Following the same, issue was decided in favour of assessee.
Followed:'CIT v. Eel Appliances Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2071 (Del-HC) and 'CIT v. Lever India Exports Ltd.' 2017 TaxPub(DT) 590 (Bom-HC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2007-08
IN THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|