Held that the Tribunal had consistently adjudicated that working capital adjustment was permissible for better comparability. In terms of rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 the net profit margin arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions should be adjusted to take into account the differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions which could materially affect the amount of net profit in the open market. If the working capital adjustment could not be allowed to the profit margins, then the comparable uncontrolled transactions chosen for the purpose of comparison would have to be treated as not comparable in terms of rule 10B. As a result, the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the working capital adjustment claimed by the assessee and was, accordingly, so directed.(AY.2016-17)
Bharat Vijaykumar Jain (HUF) v. Dy. CIT (2022) 95 ITR 122 (Bang) (Trib)
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Working capital adjustment permissible for better comparability [S.92CA, R. 10B(1)(e) (iii)]