{"id":28759,"date":"2022-07-25T17:17:43","date_gmt":"2022-07-25T11:47:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/dcit-v-schlumber-solutions-p-ltd-2022-193-itd-293-dehraduntrib-2\/"},"modified":"2022-07-25T17:17:43","modified_gmt":"2022-07-25T11:47:43","slug":"dcit-v-schlumber-solutions-p-ltd-2022-193-itd-293-dehraduntrib-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/dcit-v-schlumber-solutions-p-ltd-2022-193-itd-293-dehraduntrib-2\/","title":{"rendered":"DCIT v. Schlumber Solutions (P.) Ltd. (2022) 193 ITD 293 (Dehradun)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee had sub-contracted work to MIOL in relation to a contract awarded by ONGC to assessee. However, subsequent to a global acquisition by group to which assessee belonged MIOL had become a part of said group and, consequently, an AE of assessee. CUP method had been applied by assessee to determine arm&#8217;s length price for inter-company transactions between assessee and its AE in relation to availing of sub-contractor services.\u00a0 TPO held that assessee had applied CUP method by using a QUOTE from a third party and since a quotation may not be a good base to apply CUP method in normal circumstances, TNMM was MAM. Tribunal held that-CUP method is most direct and reliable way of applying arm&#8217;s length principle and price an inter-company transaction but applying of &#8216;QUOTE&#8217; from third party for economic analysis using CUP method was not a justifiable method, matter was set aside to file of Assessing Officer to determine ALP using CUP method taking into consideration appropriate comparables<strong>. <\/strong>\u00a0(AY. 2011-12\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm\u2019s length price-CUP method-Applying of &#8216;QUOTE&#8217; from third party for economic analysis using CUP method was not a justifiable method-Matter remanded.<\/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-28759","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-7tR","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28759","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=28759"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28759\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28760,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28759\/revisions\/28760"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28759"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28759"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28759"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}