Tribunal held that proviso to section 92CE(1), cannot be interpreted as a bar on any secondary adjustment even de hors requirements under section 92CE(1). Matter was remanded for verification of factual elements. (AY. 2011-12 to 2016-17)
Gemological Institute of America Inc. v. ACIT(IT) (2021) 189 ITD 254 / 88 ITR 505 / 211 TTJ 521 / 201 DTR 321 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Secondary adjustment cannot be rejected-Matter was remanded for verification of factual elements. [S. 92CE(1)]