Held that t neither the Assessing Officer nor the Transfer Pricing Officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) had doubted either the actual rendition of services rendered by the associated enterprise or the utility of such services to the assessee. It was not open therefore for the Department to raise any new point as to actual rendition of services at this stage. Relied on, CIT v. Ekl Appliances L td (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi)(HC) Held that the transactional net margin method was the most appropriate method in the absence of a comparable uncontrolled price which was applicable where the nature of the activities involved, assets used, and risk assumed are comparable to those undertaken by an independent enterprise. Tribunal also held that though each AY. is an independent one and the rule of res judicata has no application to the proceedings, rule of consistency has to be followed. Relied on, Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC). (AY. 2010-11, 2011-12)
Menzies Bobba Ground Handling Services P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)105 ITR 72 (SN.)/ 154 taxmann.com 461 (Hyd) (Trib)
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Payment of technical fees for services rendered-Neither Assessing Officer nor Transfer Pricing Officer nor Commissioner (Appeals) doubted actual Rendering or utility of services-Not open to Department to question actual rendering of services before Tribunal.-Most Appropriate Method-Transactional Net Margin Method-For immediately preceding and succeeding years payment of technical service fees accepted without Transfer Pricing adjustments-Rule of consistency is followed-Rejection is not justified. [S. 254(1)
Leave a Reply