2017 (11) TMI 585

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n error in law and consequently that the adjustment made in the present case was unsupported by proper application of Rules 10B or 10C of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [hereafter "the 1962 Rules]". The assessee is a manufacturer as well as a trader; it was incorporated as a joint-venture and eventually became 100% subsidiary of M/s. Cargill Mauritius Limited. The commodities it manufactures and trades are edible oil and plastic films. For AY 2007-08, it declared net loss of Rs. 26,85,38,165/-; upon selection for scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the returns involved international transactions with its Associated Enterprise (AE); the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who largely accepted the Arm's Length ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Comparable Uncontrolled Prices Method (CUP) but during the course of the proceedings, it was modified to TNMM. Its contention was firstly rejected by advertence to Rule 10 of the 1962 Rules which arms the AO/TPO with the discretion of applying the most appropriate method. Next dealing with the application of Berry Ratio, the Tribunal then proceeded to deal with the Berry Ratio and other arguments pertaining to cash discount on advance payments; it observed as follows: "9. The ld. AR has contended that Berry ratio is applied while benchmarking the merchanting activity transactions. The concept of Berry Ratio has been approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal. We find this submission of the assessee is ....