Choosing the right transfer pricing method for finished-goods imports and AMP costs; RPM applied, adjustment sent for recomputation.

The dominant issue was the appropriate most appropriate method (MAM) for determining the arm's length price of international transactions involving purchase of finished goods and the related TP adjustment on alleged AMP expenses. Relying on the binding decision of the jurisdictional HC in the same assessee's earlier year, which upheld the coordinate bench's adoption of the Resale Price Method (RPM), the ITAT held that RPM must be applied as the MAM for benchmarking. Consequently, the AO/TPO was directed to recompute the arm's length price by applying RPM and to undertake fresh benchmarking, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1) Whether, for determining the arm's length price of the international transaction relating to import/purchase of finished goods for resale without value addition, the 'Resale Price Method' should be applied as the Most Appropriate Method instead of 'TNMM'.

2) What consequential direction should be issued for recomputation/benchmarking of the arm's length price for such finished-goods purchases in the relevant year.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: MAM for benchmarking import/purchase of finished goods (RPM vs. TNMM)

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court/Tribunal): The Tribunal examined the selection of the Most Appropriate Method for determination of ALP under the transfer pricing provisions referred to in the grounds (including section 92C), but the operative reasoning turned on applying the method already conclusively accepted in the assessee's own earlier year on identical facts.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal treated the functional position as determinative: the transaction under examination was purchase/import of finished goods for resale. The Tribunal accepted that, in the immediately preceding year on identical facts, the Tribunal had held RPM to be the MAM and had directed computation of ALP under RPM, and that the jurisdictional High Court had affirmed that position. In view of this binding/settled position for the same assessee on the same transaction-profile, the Tribunal concluded that the finished-goods purchase transaction in the present year must likewise be benchmarked under RPM, not TNMM.

Conclusions: RPM was held to govern determination of ALP for the international transaction of purchase/import of finished goods for resale in the present year, and the application of TNMM by the transfer pricing authority for this transaction was not sustained.

Issue 2: Direction for recomputation and fresh benchmarking

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court/Tribunal): The Tribunal exercised its appellate power to issue directions to the assessing authority/transfer pricing authority to recompute ALP using the correct method already judicially settled for the assessee.

Interpretation and reasoning: Since the Tribunal found that the issue had already been settled in the assessee's own case for the preceding year by the jurisdictional High Court, it considered it appropriate to follow that decision and issue a remand-direction limited to recomputation in accordance with RPM. The Tribunal accepted the need for a fresh benchmarking exercise, but only within the framework of RPM as the MAM.

Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-compute the ALP of the international transactions pertaining to purchases of finished goods by applying RPM and to carry out fresh benchmarking accordingly. The relevant grounds were allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

---