TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds deletion of transfer pricing adjustments for royalty payments, stressing need for comprehensive analysis.</h1> <h3>The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3 Versus M/s Amway India Enterprises</h3> The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3 Versus M/s Amway India Enterprises - [2023] 455 ITR 325 (Del) Issues:1. Challenge to ITAT order on transfer pricing adjustment for royalty payment.2. Rejection of comparables by TPO for transfer pricing adjustment.Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge to ITAT order on transfer pricing adjustment for royalty paymentThe appellant challenged the ITAT order confirming the CIT(A) decision to delete the adjustment made on account of transfer pricing for royalty payment. The appellant argued that the royalty payment was excessive and not at arm's length due to the AMP expenses incurred for the benefit of the AEs. The appellant contended that the TPO's basis for the adjustment was flawed as it relied on huge commission expenditure creating marketing intangibles for AEs. The appellant also criticized the reliance on a previous court judgment, stating it was wrongly applied. However, both the CIT(A) and ITAT upheld the deletion of the adjustment, emphasizing that the rejection of comparables by the TPO lacked cogent reasons and was based on conjectures. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A) that the rejection of comparables was not justified, leading to the deletion of the adjustment.Issue 2: Rejection of comparables by TPO for transfer pricing adjustmentThe CIT(A) and ITAT found that the TPO's rejection of two comparables, Columbia Laboratories Inc. and Premier Consumer Products Inc., lacked proper reasoning and was based on conjectures. They emphasized that a comparable should not be excluded solely based on a high rate of royalty without considering other material facts like the nature of the entity, business model, terms of agreement, and geographical area. The CIT(A) directed the deletion of the addition made on account of transfer pricing adjustment for royalty related transactions. The ITAT concurred with this decision, stating that the TPO's filters did not indicate that high rates of royalty were a valid criterion for rejection. Both authorities relied on a court judgment to support their decision, emphasizing the need for proper analysis before excluding comparables.In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial questions of law arose for consideration. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper reasoning and analysis in transfer pricing adjustments, emphasizing that comparables should not be rejected arbitrarily based on high rates without considering relevant factors.
TaxTMI 