{"id":18358,"date":"2021-05-17T14:42:09","date_gmt":"2021-05-17T09:12:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/a-o-smith-india-water-products-pvt-ltd-v-dy-cit-2021-86-itr-38-sn-bang-trib-2\/"},"modified":"2021-05-17T14:42:09","modified_gmt":"2021-05-17T09:12:09","slug":"a-o-smith-india-water-products-pvt-ltd-v-dy-cit-2021-86-itr-38-sn-bang-trib-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/a-o-smith-india-water-products-pvt-ltd-v-dy-cit-2021-86-itr-38-sn-bang-trib-2\/","title":{"rendered":"A. O. Smith India Water Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2021) 86 ITR 38 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2011-12, the Department was aggrieved by the Dispute Resolution Panel\u2019s direction to consider cost plus method as the most appropriate method for determining the arm\u2019s length price of the international transaction under the trading segment while the Transfer Pricing Officer had adopted the resale price method as the most appropriate one. In the present case, the Transfer Pricing Officer adopted the transactional net margin method against the assessee\u2019s choice of cost plus method on the same set of comparables for determining the arm\u2019s length price. Admittedly, there being no difference in the facts and circumstances between the two assessment years, in terms of the Tribunal\u2019s direction for the earlier assessment year in the assessee\u2019s own case, the Transfer Pricing Officer was directed to determine the arm\u2019s length price of the transaction under the trading segment using the cost plus method as the most appropriate one.\u00a0 (AY. 2012-13)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm\u2019s length price-Transactional Net Margin Method Or Cost-Plus Method-Directed to follow Cost Plus Method.  [S. 92CA]  <\/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-18358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-4M6","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18358","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=18358"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18358\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18359,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18358\/revisions\/18359"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}