Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that ; unless at the entity level there was a complete re-organization so as to result in a complete identity of the two concerns, royalty arising out of the use of the ‘Dabur’ brand, had to be treated as an international transaction; it was for all previous years. In these circumstances, the conclusions and findings recorded by the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The assessee’s submission with respect to the applicability of second proviso to S. 92CA(2), i.e. that it is entitled to the benefit of the arithmetical mean – not exceeding 5 per cent, is insubstantial. The assessee, as a matter of fact, did not offer any adjustment claiming that there was indeed no international transaction. In these circumstances, the question of applicability of the said proviso does not arise.
Dabur India Ltd. v. PCIT (2018) 253 Taxman 129 / 301 CTR 367/162 DTR 297 (Delhi)
CIT v. Dilip Singh. (2018) 253 Taxman 41 / 300 CTR 184 /161 DTR 97 (Cal)(HC)
S. 92B : Transfer pricing – International transaction- Royalty arising out of use of brand name had to be treated as an international transaction.[ S.92C ]