Search Results For: RBI Approval


Sara Lee TTK Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 24, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 21, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: The assessee is obliged to carry out a bench-marking exercise with independent comparables and prove that its transactions with AEs are at arms length. Mere fact that the transaction is approved by the RBI and Govt is not sufficient

The RBI approval/FIPB approval is not determinative of ALP and cannot be considered to be a valid CUP. Automatic route under which FIPB approvals or RBI approvals are granted have been devised for the “ease of doing business”. These approvals emanate from other legislation or policy and are not in relation to determination of Arm’s Length Price. The purpose of the RBI approval/FIPB approval is entirely different and cannot be equated with the arm’s length principle. The approvals of rates given by the DIPP and the RBI are for different purposes, like for promotion of industries, management of foreign exchange etc. and it varies in accordance with the business practices prevalent at different times which are clear from the RBI approvals themselves. Going by the relevant TP provisions as enshrined under the Act and relevant Rules, it is mandatory that the appellant has to independently benchmark its international transaction with independent comparables so as to arrive at arm’s length price

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

DCIT vs. Owens Corning Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 13, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 14, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
TPO cannot question commercial expediency of payment to AE. RBI approval to a transaction implies it is at arms' length price

We are of the opinion that the TPO was incorrect in going into the business expediency of payment of royalty and arriving at the conclusion of the quantum of the royalty. We find support for this proposition in the decision

Posted in All Judgements