https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233463 The court found the Tribunal erred in not adopting the arithmetical mean of prices under Section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act. However, the taxpayer's suggested comparables indicated arm's length transactions. The Transfer Pricing Officer's rejection lacked specific reasons, and using data from an irrelevant financial year was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal criticized the TPO for flawed analysis and inappropriate criteria. The appeal was allowed to correct the Tribunal's error, affirming the arm's length nature of the taxpayer's transactions, with no costs ordered. en-us Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233463 The court found the Tribunal erred in not adopting the arithmetical mean of prices under Section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act. However, the taxpayer's suggested comparables indicated arm's length transactions. The Transfer Pricing Officer's rejection lacked specific reasons, and using data from an irrelevant financial year was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal criticized the TPO for flawed analysis and inappropriate criteria. The appeal was allowed to correct the Tribunal's error, affirming the arm's length nature of the taxpayer's transactions, with no costs ordered. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233463