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>TPO cannot separately benchmark royalty payments when overall margin already accepted as arms length price</h1> <h3>The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore Versus M/s. Toyota Kirloskar And M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore</h3> ITAT Bangalore dismissed revenue's appeal challenging CIT(A)'s order allowing assessee's appeal against TPO's separate benchmarking of royalty payments. ... TP Adjustment - whether the royalty can be separately benchmarked when the margin was accepted by the TPO to be at arms length price? - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) had rightly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the TPO in which the royalty was separately benchmarked even after the margin is accepted to be at arms length price by the TPO. This Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, we are not inclined to accept the grounds raised by the revenue and in effect, we are dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue. Issues:Transfer Pricing Adjustment - Royalty BenchmarkingDetailed Analysis:The judgment involves two appeals by the revenue and two Cross Objections by the assessee regarding transfer pricing adjustments related to royalty payments for the A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-10. The appeals and cross objections were disposed of together due to identical issues. The primary issue was whether royalty payments could be separately benchmarked when the TPO accepted the margin to be at arm's length price. The TPO had initially treated the royalty payment as transfer pricing adjustment, but the assessee contended that royalty should not be separately benchmarked based on previous tribunal decisions. The Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal, relying on previous decisions favoring the assessee.The revenue appealed the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision for A.Y. 2008-09, questioning whether royalty could be benchmarked separately and arguing that the TPO should determine the arm's length price (ALP) of the international transaction. The revenue also contended that the benefit derived from royalty payments should be considered integral to transfer pricing analysis. The Tribunal considered various case laws and the assessee's previous cases to determine whether separate benchmarking of royalty was necessary. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where royalty was not separately benchmarked when the margin was accepted to be at arm's length price, ultimately deciding in favor of the assessee.The Tribunal upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision, stating that no separate benchmarking of royalty payment was required when the TNMM approach included royalty at entity level. The Tribunal found that the issue was similar to previous cases in the assessee's favor and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The judgment for A.Y. 2009-10 followed the same reasoning and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Cross Objections by the assessee were deemed infructuous and dismissed in light of the dismissal of the revenue's appeals.In conclusion, the Tribunal held that separate benchmarking of royalty payments was not necessary when the TNMM approach included royalty at entity level. The judgment relied on previous decisions in the assessee's favor and dismissed the revenue's appeals for both A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Cross Objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed as infructuous.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
