Held that the Tribunal had concurrently found that the assessee had received intra group services it was necessary for the Transfer Pricing Officer to examine the transfer pricing studies furnished by the assessee in that perspective. If the conditions as specified under section 92C(3) were not satisfied, the Transfer Pricing Officer could not proceed to make any adjustment. The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer to consider afresh since his fundamental premise was that the assessee had not received any services and had been rejected. In such circumstances, there was no infirmity in the Tribunal’s decision in remanding the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer to consider afresh. The Transfer Pricing Officer was required to consider whether any of the conditions under section 92C(3) were satisfied before proceeding to make transfer pricing adjustment on account of intra group services.(AY. 2009 10)
American Express Banking Corporation (India Branch) v. ADIT (2025) 476 ITR 752/174 taxmann.com 595 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Specified domestic transaction-Concurrent findings of appellate authorities that assessee had received intra-group services-Matter remanded by Tribunal to Transfer Pricing Officer to consider afresh from perspective of findings Held, no infirmity in order of Tribunal remanding matter for fresh consideration. [S.92CA(3) 254(1), 260A.]
Leave a Reply