{"id":15911,"date":"2021-03-24T12:20:30","date_gmt":"2021-03-24T06:50:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/hathway-cable-and-datacom-ltd-v-dcit-2020-182-itd-274-77-itr-52-sn-203-ttj-691-186-dtr-50-mum-trib\/"},"modified":"2021-03-24T12:20:30","modified_gmt":"2021-03-24T06:50:30","slug":"hathway-cable-and-datacom-ltd-v-dcit-2020-182-itd-274-77-itr-52-sn-203-ttj-691-186-dtr-50-mum-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/hathway-cable-and-datacom-ltd-v-dcit-2020-182-itd-274-77-itr-52-sn-203-ttj-691-186-dtr-50-mum-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Hathway Cable and Datacom Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 182 ITD 274 \/77 ITR 52 (SN)\/203 TTJ 691\/186 DTR 50 (Mum.)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee a &#8216;multi system operator&#8217; (MSO) in distribution of television channels, received placement charges from broadcasters for placing their channels at preferred positions. After retaining amount attributable to direct subscriber base of company, it distributed balance amount among RPs (Related Parties) according to their respective entitlements as worked out on basis of their subscribers.\u00a0 TPO on ad hoc basis, added 50 per cent of placement charges as assessee&#8217;s income. DRP upheld ad hoc addition to extent of 10 per cent. On appeal the Tribunal held that\u00a0 adjustment of 10 per cent\u00a0 upheld by DRP was without following any of prescribed methods under section 92C(1) nor had any benchmarking been adopted in determination of ALP, there was no justification even for upholding 10 per cent of addition. (AY. 2014-15)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm\u2019s length price-Addition of 10 percent-Allocation of expenses-Held to be not justified. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15911","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-48D","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15911","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15911"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15911\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15912,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15911\/revisions\/15912"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15911"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15911"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15911"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}