TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the CUP method was the most appropriate method for benchmarking import of raw materials, components and semi-finished goods in the manufacturing segment; (ii) Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the RPM was the most appropriate method for benchmarking import of finished goods in the trading segment.
Issue (i): Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the CUP method was the most appropriate method for benchmarking import of raw materials, components and semi-finished goods in the manufacturing segment.
Analysis: The CIT(A) had in fact accepted the assessee's stand that the TNMM was the most appropriate method for the Class I segment transactions. The ITAT proceeded on a mistaken factual assumption that the CIT(A) had upheld CUP. The Court further noted that the assessee's functional profile and the nature of transactions remained unchanged in subsequent years, and the Revenue had accepted the assessee's transfer pricing approach in those years.
Conclusion: The finding applying CUP for the Class I segment was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the RPM was the most appropriate method for benchmarking import of finished goods in the trading segment.
Analysis: The CIT(A) had also accepted TNMM for the Class II segment, but the ITAT wrongly assumed that RPM had been upheld and approved by the CIT(A). The Court held that there was no change in the assessee's business profile across the relevant years and no basis to disturb the CIT(A)'s conclusion or to remand the matter for fresh consideration.
Conclusion: The finding applying RPM for the Class II segment was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The ITAT's order was set aside and the CIT(A)'s order restoring the assessee's transfer pricing method was affirmed; the Revenue's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the lower appellate authority's factual premise is demonstrably and the assessee's functional profile and international transactions remain materially unchanged across years, a remand to reconsider the most appropriate transfer pricing method is unwarranted, especially when the Revenue has accepted the same treatment in subsequent years.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
