The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer to undertake a fresh search. On appeal the High Court held that no question of law arose because the Tribunal had consistently followed its orders for the A.Y.s 2006-07 and 2007-08 which were affirmed by the court, that “the assessee was a low risk procurement support service provider” mostly working towards recovering its cost and earning a reasonable mark-up in line with its functions performed, that there was no authority or discretion to the assessee in deviating or changing from the policies and procedures prescribed by the parent company, and accordingly that the assessee had not incurred any significant risk in its functions. On appeal by the Revenue the SLP of the Revenue was dismissed.(AY. 2012-13)
PCIT v. Gap International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 770 / 292 Taxman 413 (SC) Editorial: PCIT v. Gap International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd(Delhi)(HC)(ITA No. 531 of 2019 dt 22 -5 2019), is affirmed.
S. 92C : Transfer pricing -Arm’s length price -Support services -Cost plus model -Commission based model- Comparable –Question of fact. [Art. 136, 226]