https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441470 The Tribunal allowed the appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11, directing a fresh benchmarking analysis by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for international transactions of sale of goods to Associated Enterprises (AEs). The Tribunal found that the TPO did not comply with its directions in excluding a comparable entity, GTN Ltd., in the benchmarking exercise. The benefit of the +/- 5% range under Section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act was not explicitly ruled upon but implied to be reconsidered in the fresh analysis. The issue of charging interest under section 220(2) was also left for reconsideration in light of the fresh benchmarking analysis. en-us Fri, 04 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Aug 2023 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441470 The Tribunal allowed the appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11, directing a fresh benchmarking analysis by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for international transactions of sale of goods to Associated Enterprises (AEs). The Tribunal found that the TPO did not comply with its directions in excluding a comparable entity, GTN Ltd., in the benchmarking exercise. The benefit of the +/- 5% range under Section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act was not explicitly ruled upon but implied to be reconsidered in the fresh analysis. The issue of charging interest under section 220(2) was also left for reconsideration in light of the fresh benchmarking analysis. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441470