Held that in the assessee\u2019s own case for the assessment years\u00a02013-14\u00a0,\u00a02014-15\u00a0and\u00a02015-16\u00a0, the Tribunal had held that the transactions of corporate guarantee should be benchmarked adopting 0.5 per cent. of the value guarantee as increased by the expenditure actually incurred by the assessee in furnishing such guarantee. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were to be set aside and the Assessing Officer\/the Transfer Pricing Officer directed to compute the arm\u2019s length price transactions of corporate guarantee adopting 0.5 per cent. of the corporate guarantee as guarantee fees plus actual expenditure incurred in furnishing such guarantee. That following the order of the Tribunal in the assessee\u2019s own case for the assessment year\u00a02015-16\u00a0and earlier years, the performance guarantee was not to be excluded and should be benchmarked on par with financial guarantee. That for the assessment year\u00a02015-16\u00a0in the assessee\u2019s own case, the Tribunal had held that the external transactional net margin method as the most appropriate method for the purpose of benchmarking the transactions of purchase and sale of pharma products from its associated enterprises. The Assessing Officer\/the Transfer Pricing Officer were to adopt the external transactional net margin method as the most appropriate method for the purpose of benchmarking the international transactions of purchase and sale of pharma products from its associated enterprises. .(AY. 2016-17)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm\u2019s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Corporate guarantee-Transaction to be benchmarked adopting 0.5 Per Cent. [ S.92B] <\/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-44816","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-bEQ","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44816","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=44816"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44816\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44817,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44816\/revisions\/44817"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44816"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44816"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44816"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}