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>High Court Overturns ITAT Order, Orders Review of Arm's Length Price in Resale Price Method Dispute.</h1> <h3>HAIER APPLIANCES INDIA PVT LTD Versus DCIT CIRCLE 11 (1) NEW DELHI</h3> HAIER APPLIANCES INDIA PVT LTD Versus DCIT CIRCLE 11 (1) NEW DELHI - TMI Issues:1. Challenge to ITAT order rejecting miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Questions of law regarding the application of Resale Price Method (RPM) and arm's length price of Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses.3. Inconsistency in ITAT's findings regarding the application of RPM and determination of arm's length price of AMP expenses.Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the ITAT order rejecting a miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, through a writ petition. The ITAT had earlier rejected the appellant's application seeking to invoke powers under Section 254(2) post an order dated 21 September 2020. The writ petition (W.P.(C) 261/2023) was filed against the ITAT's order of 10 August 2022.2. The appeal raised questions of law related to the application of the Resale Price Method (RPM) and the determination of the arm's length price of Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses. The appellant contended that the ITAT's order was self-contradictory as it allowed the contention that AMP expenses should be benchmarked using the RPM method but also upheld an AMP adjustment. The ITAT's findings were challenged as factually and legally perverse.3. The ITAT initially held that the RPM method was applicable for benchmarking AMP expenses. However, it later quantified the arm's length price of AMP expenses, resulting in an adjustment. The ITAT acknowledged the inconsistency in its findings but cited limitations under Section 254(2) of the Act for rectification. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the ITAT's order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration. The writ petition challenging the order on the miscellaneous application was not interfered with.This detailed analysis outlines the issues raised in the appeal, the questions of law regarding RPM and AMP expenses, and the inconsistency in the ITAT's findings, leading to the High Court's decision to remit the matter for fresh consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
