<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (10) TMI 1057 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444834</link>
    <description>The ITAT Delhi held that TNMM should be adopted as the most appropriate method for benchmarking transfer pricing transactions instead of CUP method, following precedent from connected appeals. The TPO&#039;s rejection of assessee&#039;s TNMM approach using OP/OPEX as PLI was overturned. The matter was remanded to TPO to benchmark using Berry ratio as PLI. Regarding protective addition under TNMM, the Tribunal ruled that FOB value of goods cannot be included in cost base as it belongs to buyer/seller, not commission agent. The case was also remanded to DRP to reconsider comparable selection, requiring analysis of both assessee&#039;s 8 comparables and TPO&#039;s 3 selected companies with proper FAR analysis and speaking order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 1057 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444834</link>
      <description>The ITAT Delhi held that TNMM should be adopted as the most appropriate method for benchmarking transfer pricing transactions instead of CUP method, following precedent from connected appeals. The TPO&#039;s rejection of assessee&#039;s TNMM approach using OP/OPEX as PLI was overturned. The matter was remanded to TPO to benchmark using Berry ratio as PLI. Regarding protective addition under TNMM, the Tribunal ruled that FOB value of goods cannot be included in cost base as it belongs to buyer/seller, not commission agent. The case was also remanded to DRP to reconsider comparable selection, requiring analysis of both assessee&#039;s 8 comparables and TPO&#039;s 3 selected companies with proper FAR analysis and speaking order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>