| COURT: | ITAT Hyderabad |
| CORAM: | P. M. Jagtap, Saktijit Dey (JM) |
| SECTION(S): | 92C(3) |
| GENRE: | Transfer Pricing |
| CATCH WORDS: | Arms length price, Transfer Pricing |
| COUNSEL: | Kanchun Kaushal |
| DATE: | February 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | February 9, 2015 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2010-11 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| TPO/ DRP's action of reducing the quantum of royalty paid to AE by applying the "benefit test" is surprising and improper | |
It is an accepted principle of law that TPO has to determine the ALP by adopting any one of the methods prescribed u/s 92C of the Act. Mode and manner of computation of ALP under different methods have been laid down in rule 10B. Even, assuming that TPO has followed CUP method for determining ALP of royalty payment, as held by ld. DRP, it needs to be examined if it is strictly in compliance with statutory provisions. Rule 10B(1)(a) lays down the procedure for determining ALP under CUP method
Recent Comments