<?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>2017 (2) TMI 1573 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468291</link>
    <description>Raw kits supplied by the associated enterprise for assembly and re-export were treated as pass-through material costs, so they were excluded from the assessee&#039;s Cost Plus Method cost base because the assessee earned profit only on value-addition services. Astra Microwave Component Ltd. was held not to be functionally comparable since it operated as a full-fledged manufacturing and marketing company, unlike a captive unit performing limited processing for the same enterprise. With the retained comparable rejected, no reliable arm&#039;s length benchmark remained; the transfer pricing adjustment was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh arm&#039;s length price determination under the appropriate method.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2026 12:48:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1573 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468291</link>
      <description>Raw kits supplied by the associated enterprise for assembly and re-export were treated as pass-through material costs, so they were excluded from the assessee&#039;s Cost Plus Method cost base because the assessee earned profit only on value-addition services. Astra Microwave Component Ltd. was held not to be functionally comparable since it operated as a full-fledged manufacturing and marketing company, unlike a captive unit performing limited processing for the same enterprise. With the retained comparable rejected, no reliable arm&#039;s length benchmark remained; the transfer pricing adjustment was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh arm&#039;s length price determination under the appropriate method.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>