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 transfer-pricing adjustment required fresh determination after proper segmental and FAR analysis, including consideration of CUP as an alternative to TNMM and appropriate adjustments under TNMM.
Analysis: The segmental computation did not consistently allocate revenue and costs to the respective trading, minimal-alteration and manufacturing activities. The selection of the most appropriate method must be governed by the facts, product comparability and FAR profile. CUP, RPM or CPM is preferable where it can reliably determine the arm's length price; TNMM is to be applied where traditional methods are unsuitable. An assessee is not precluded from seeking a different prescribed method from that adopted in its transfer-pricing report if that method produces a more appropriate arm's length determination. If TNMM is adopted, adjustments may be considered where material differences with comparables are established.
Conclusion: The transfer-pricing issue is remitted for de novo verification and a fresh determination after considering the FAR analysis, applicability of CUP and, if necessary, TNMM with appropriate adjustments. The conclusion is in favour of the assessee.