| COURT: | ITAT Mumbai |
| CORAM: | G. S. Pannu (AM), Ravish Sood (JM) |
| SECTION(S): | 92C, Rule 10B(1)(b) |
| GENRE: | Transfer Pricing |
| CATCH WORDS: | ALP, Arms length price, corporate guarantee, Resale Price Method, RPM |
| COUNSEL: | Vijay Mehta |
| DATE: | May 5, 2017 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | May 11, 2017 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2008-09 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| Transfer Pricing: Law explained as to when the “Resale Price Method” (RPM) can be used with respect to related parties under Rule 10B (1)(b) + Law on determining arm’s length rate of the corporate guarantee commission/fee explained | |
The Transfer Pricing Officer has selected RPM as most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price of the transaction of sale of programmes and film rights to ATL in contrast to the TNM method selected by the assessee. The first controversy is as to whether the Transfer Pricing Officer was justified in selecting the RPM as most appropriate method. Section 92(1) of the Act provides that the arm’s length price in relation to the international transaction shall be determined by any of the methods prescribed therein, being the most appropriate method. Notably, the phraseology of section 92C(1) of the Act makes it clear that the selection of the most appropriate method is to be made “having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors………………..”. Further, Rule 10B of the Rules enumerates the various methods to determine the arm’s length price of an international transaction and for the present purpose, what is relevant is clause(b) of Rule 10B(1) of the Rules, which prescribes the manner in which the RPM is to be effectuated
Recent Comments