https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431303 An Indian branch that issued guarantees only against back-to-back overseas counter-guarantees, and whose role was limited to processing and administrative support, was not shown to bear the underlying credit risk. In that setting, a CUP benchmark based on third-party data collected under section 133(6) was rejected because the functional and factual differences could not be reliably adjusted. Following the assessee's own earlier year decision, and finding no change in facts or law, the ITAT Mumbai held that TNMM remained the appropriate method and deleted the transfer pricing adjustment on guarantee fee. en-us Wed, 10 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Dec 2022 11:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431303 An Indian branch that issued guarantees only against back-to-back overseas counter-guarantees, and whose role was limited to processing and administrative support, was not shown to bear the underlying credit risk. In that setting, a CUP benchmark based on third-party data collected under section 133(6) was rejected because the functional and factual differences could not be reliably adjusted. Following the assessee's own earlier year decision, and finding no change in facts or law, the ITAT Mumbai held that TNMM remained the appropriate method and deleted the transfer pricing adjustment on guarantee fee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431303