| |
The Tax PublishersITA No. 2846/Del/2016
2020 TaxPub(DT) 4156 (Del-Trib)INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 92C
Where evidences were filed by assessee to establish its case of availment of services from AE there was no merit in the order of TPO in questioning availment of services and benefit derived by assessee. Hence, payment made by assessee being cost to cost reimbursement of services availed from common pool was duly allowable as business expenditure in the hands of the assessee. TPO exceeded his juisdiction in holding value of the said international transaction at NIL.
|
Transfer pricing - Determination of ALP - Cost-to-cost reimbursement towards specialized services provided by AE from common pool - TPO determined nil ALP questioning benefit derived by assessee --- Assessee furnished supportive evidences
Assessee was availing of specialized services, which were provided by its AEs from common pool and services were charged on cost-to-cost basis. TPO determined ALP of reimbursement made by assessee at nil on the ground that no benefit was derived by assessee. Held: Evidences were filed by assessee to establish its case of availment of services and hence, there was no merit in the order of TPO questioning availment of services and benefit derived by assessee. Hence, payment made by assessee being cost-to-cost reimbursement of services availed from common pool was duly allowable as business expenditure in the hands of the assessee. TPO exceeded his jurisdiction in holding value of the said international transaction at NIL.
Followed:CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2071 (Del-HC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2009-10
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|