https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237163 In determining ALP under s.92C read with rr.10A(a) and 10B(e) (TNMM), the Tribunal held that comparison must be made only with a "comparable uncontrolled transaction," i.e., a transaction between non-associated enterprises; a transaction between associated enterprises is statutorily excluded from the definition of "uncontrolled transaction." Since ALP reflects profitability absent relationship influence, net margins from controlled intra-group dealings, even if previously accepted as at arm's length, cannot serve as benchmarks for other international transactions. Consequently, an internal comparable involving the assessee's wholly owned subsidiary was rejected, and the subsidiary was excluded as a comparable for computing ALP. en-us Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 10:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237163 In determining ALP under s.92C read with rr.10A(a) and 10B(e) (TNMM), the Tribunal held that comparison must be made only with a "comparable uncontrolled transaction," i.e., a transaction between non-associated enterprises; a transaction between associated enterprises is statutorily excluded from the definition of "uncontrolled transaction." Since ALP reflects profitability absent relationship influence, net margins from controlled intra-group dealings, even if previously accepted as at arm's length, cannot serve as benchmarks for other international transactions. Consequently, an internal comparable involving the assessee's wholly owned subsidiary was rejected, and the subsidiary was excluded as a comparable for computing ALP. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237163