Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the TIPS-based external CUP benchmarking adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer was reliable for determining the arm's length price of the assessee's export transactions, and whether the Dispute Resolution Panel was justified in directing benchmarking on the basis of the mean gross profit realised from non-AE transactions.
Analysis: The assessee's exports involved different iron-content grades, different ports, and differing transaction conditions, making direct comparison with TIPS data unreliable. The data also did not fully capture all relevant transactions and did not account for material differences affecting price. In these circumstances, the external CUP exercise was found to be faulty. The Dispute Resolution Panel's approach of comparing AE exports with the assessee's own non-AE exports as internal comparables was considered the more appropriate method because transfer pricing law aims to test controlled transactions against similar uncontrolled transactions under reasonably comparable conditions.
Conclusion: The Dispute Resolution Panel's directions were upheld, and the Revenue's challenge to the transfer pricing adjustment failed.