Held, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that sales to associated enterprises under individual contracts is not payment of royalty. Royalty payment by subsidiary to its parent company abroad which is comparable to those in open market. Transfer pricing adjustment of royalty is not justified. No substantial question of law. (AY. 2008-09)
PCIT v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (2024)467 ITR 197/ 164 taxmann.com 706 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 92CA : Transfer pricing Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer-Arm’s Length price-Avoidance of tax-Parent company of subsidiary-Not controlling and determining quantity of production-Sales to associated enterprises under individual contracts-Not payment of royalty-Not profit-shifting mechanism even if royalty embedded in sale price-Contract manufacturer-Royalty payment by subsidiary to its parent company abroad-Comparable to those in open market-Transfer pricing adjustment of royalty is not justified-No substantial question of law. [S.92C, 260A, R.10A, 10E]