TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's international transactions were required to be benchmarked at the entity level or only on the basis of segmental results relating to associated enterprise transactions; (ii) whether the comparables selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer, including entities with different functional profiles and lower export revenue, were liable to be excluded and the assessee entitled to the benefit of +/- 5% under the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee's international transactions were required to be benchmarked at the entity level or only on the basis of segmental results relating to associated enterprise transactions.
Analysis: The assessee had maintained segmental accounts and the segmental analysis was certified, while the rejection of such segmental working solely because it was not audited was found unsustainable. Where transactions are capable of segregation, benchmarking must be carried out with reference to the international transactions and not the entire entity. On the facts, the assessee's AE segment could not be ignored and entity-level benchmarking was held to be erroneous.
Conclusion: Benchmarking at the entity level was rejected and the assessee's segmental AE results were held to be the proper basis for transfer pricing analysis.
Issue (ii): Whether the comparables selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer, including entities with different functional profiles and lower export revenue, were liable to be excluded and the assessee entitled to the benefit of +/- 5% under the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: Comparables operating in retail, fabric or yarn manufacture, contract manufacturing, leather garments, merger-acquisition situations, and entities with export revenue below the stipulated threshold were found to lack comparable functional, asset and risk profiles. The matter of comparables was therefore not fit for final adjudication and required fresh examination with exclusion of inapt companies. The assessee was also entitled to be considered for the statutory tolerance range.
Conclusion: The comparables issue was remitted to the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh adjudication with directions to exclude non-comparable entities and to allow the +/- 5% benefit under section 92C(2).
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the transfer pricing controversy, but the matter was sent back for fresh determination on comparables and arm's length price.
Ratio Decidendi: Where segmental results for associated enterprise transactions are available, transfer pricing must be benchmarked on those transactions and comparables must satisfy functional, asset and risk comparability, including relevant export profile filters.
TaxTMI 
