COURT: | ITAT Delhi |
CORAM: | I. C. Sudhir (JM), T. S. Kapoor (AM) |
SECTION(S): | 92C |
GENRE: | Transfer Pricing |
CATCH WORDS: | Berry Ratio, sogo shosha, Transfer Pricing |
COUNSEL: | Rano Jain, Ved Jain |
DATE: | August 20, 2015 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | August 27, 2015 (Date of publication) |
AY: | 2007-08, 2008-09 |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
Transfer Pricing: Transactions of providing support services to “Sogo shosha” entities cannot be characterized as trading transaction for purposes of comparison and determining ALP and the cost of sales cannot be included |
The activities of purchase and sale i.e. trading involves risk and finance whereas in the activity of support services i.e. intending transactions the assessee has neither to incur any financial obligation nor carries any significant risk. The nature of two activities is absolutely different. The activities of trading i.e. purchase and sale are highly insignificant as compared to activity of support service which constitutes the core business activities of the assessee. The TPO and DRP are wrong in applying the trading margins ignoring the facts of the case that the assessee being a service provider the trading margins cannot be applied. Further, the TPO DRP have gone wrong in including the cost of sales in OP/TC ignoring the fact the value of the sale under no circumstances effects the activities of the assessee company, a service provider. For support services the correct method is the TNMM and the assessee has computed the same on the basis of OP/TC. The OECD guidelines also supports this contention that in TP study business transactions cannot be recharacterized. The support service or intending provided by the assessee company is nothing but a trading facilitation both in form and substance
Recent Comments