2015 (11) TMI 1619

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ircumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made by Transfer Pricing Officer of Rs. 1,59,88,100/on account of fees for technical services ?" 3. The respondent assessee is a wholly owned 100% Indian subsidiary of Generale De Survillance (SGS) (parent company). The parent company is based in Geneva, Switzerland. The respondent assessee is engaged in India in providing certification with regard to various agricultural, mineral, petroleum, consumer goods and other services. 4. For the aforesaid purpose of its business, the respondent - assessee uses the trade mark of its parent company and it pays Royalty for the same ranging between 2.5 % to 4% of the Revenue generated. For the purpose of transfer pri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....controlled transaction of royalty at 10%, whereas the respondent assessee makes only a payment at 3% to its Associated Enterprises. Thus, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent that bench marking at 3% to arrive at ALP of payment made to parent company as Royalty for use of Trade Mark. 7. The Revenue before us contends that Press Note No.9 (2000 series) issued by Ministry of Commerce, Government of India in clause III thereof provides as under:" III. Payment of royalty upto 2% for exports and 1% for domestic sales is allowed under automatic route on use of trademarks and brand name of the foreign collaborator without technology transfer." Thus, it is submitted that the bench marking of royalty payable by the respondent t....