Hon’ble court has held that in terms of the provision of section 92C of the Act, ALP cannot be determined by comparing prices charged to Group Companies, i.e., controlled transaction. Hence, TPO ought to have arrived at ALP of assessee’s sale to its AE by only comparing it with an uncontrolled transaction of sale and, therefore, approach of TPO was contrary to provisions of law. (AY. 2004-05)
PCIT v. Audco India Ltd (2019) 264 Taxman 237 / (2024) 461 ITR 152 (Bom)(HC) Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed,PCIT v. L & T Valves Ltd. [2023] 295 Taxman 585 (2024) 461 ITR 157 (SC)
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Specified domestic transaction-Transfer pricing adjustment on basis of transactions where prices charged to Associated Enterprises was less than that charged to unrelated parties-Contrary to legal provisions-Deletion of upward transfer pricing adjustment by the Tribunal is affirmed. [S.92, 260A]