The Tribunal held that remission of liability and doubtful debts written back, being intrinsically connected with the business operations of the assessee, constituted operating income for determining the arm’s length price. The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss arising in the ordinary course of business constituted an operating item for transfer pricing purposes, particularly when it had been accepted as such in the preceding and succeeding assessment years. The Transfer Pricing Officer determined the arm’s length price of technical know-how fees paid to associated enterprises at Nil. Following its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer could not disregard the prescribed methods under section 92C or apply a need-benefit test while determining the arm’s length price. (AY. 2010-11).
UPS Express P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2025) 129 ITR 381 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Liability and doubtful debts written back-Operating income-Foreign exchange fluctuation loss-Operating in nature-Technical know-how fees-Arm’s length price cannot be determined at Nil-Need-benefit test not permissible. [S.4, 5, 92CA]
Leave a Reply