S. 92CA: Transfer pricing-Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer-Arm’s Length price-Avoidance of tax-Investment in equity shares of overseas subsidiary-Not an international transaction of loan-No notional interest could be charged. [S. 92B, 92C]

S. 92CA: Transfer pricing-Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer-Arm’s Length price-Avoidance of tax-Interest on unsecured compulsorily convertible debentures-Arm’s length rate accepted in earlier years-Revenue could not adopt a different view in absence of change in facts. [S.92C, 143, R. 10B]

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Export commission paid to Associated Enterprise-Higher export profitability established-Transfer pricing adjustment deleted-Jurisdiction confined to determination of Arm’s Length Price-Commercial expediency of expenditure cannot be questioned-Model fee paid to Associated Enterprise allowable.[S.92CA]

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Transfer of shares-Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method-Transfer Pricing Officer cannot substitute projected figures with actual subsequent results. [S.56(2)(viib), 92B, 92CA, Rr. 10B, 11UA]

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction Technical know-how fees-Transfer Pricing Officer cannot determine arm’s length price at Nil without applying prescribed method-Need-benefit test not permissible. [S. 92CA]

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Liability and doubtful debts written back-Operating income-Foreign exchange fluctuation loss-Operating in nature-Technical know-how fees-Arm’s length price cannot be determined at Nil-Need-benefit test not permissible. [S.4, 5, 92CA]

S. 92C : International transactions-Arm’s length price-Comparables-Functionally different company-Absence of segmental results-Comparable directed to be excluded.[S.92CA]

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Royalty-Benchmarking-Transactional Net Margin Method adopted at entity level-Separate benchmarking of royalty not warranted.

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Profit Level Indicator-Gross margin on sales appropriate where associated enterprises are risk-bearing distributors.-Tested party-Alternative benchmarking adopting associated enterprises as tested parties-Accepted-Interest on loans to associated enterprises-Assessee’s contention that loans formed part of shareholder activities not examined-Matter remanded-Corporate, financial and performance guarantees-International transactions-Guarantee commission chargeable at 0.5 per cent-Imputation of royalty from associated enterprises-Assessee not owner of brand-No notional royalty could be charged. [R. 10B]

S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Management fee for advisory-TPO was not justified in making a downward adjustment by taking management fee expense at ‘Nil’ under CUP method, disregarding TNMM employed by assessee as most appropriate method, without pointing out any defects in application or relevance of TNMM by the assessee-Payment of management fee for advisory services and use of brand name, said services received by assessee could not be labelled as shareholder/stewardship services.[S.92CA]