{"id":47812,"date":"2024-11-14T16:28:46","date_gmt":"2024-11-14T10:58:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-phoenix-comtrade-p-ltd-2024-339-ctr-294-162-taxmann-com-99-bomhc\/"},"modified":"2024-11-14T16:28:46","modified_gmt":"2024-11-14T10:58:46","slug":"pcit-v-phoenix-comtrade-p-ltd-2024-339-ctr-294-162-taxmann-com-99-bomhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-phoenix-comtrade-p-ltd-2024-339-ctr-294-162-taxmann-com-99-bomhc\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT v. Phoenix Comtrade (P) LTD. (2024) 339 CTR 294 \/ 162 taxmann.com 99 (Bom)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee had applied TNMM but TPO proceeded to apply the CUP method and conducted a search on the Bloomberg database to find the sale price of rice. Without ascertaining or explaining in detail whether the rates were for products exported from India or from any other country or specifying whether the rates relate to controlled or uncontrolled transactions or whether it relates to retail or wholesale market, the TPO simply proceeded on the basis of Bloomberg database. Assessee also submitted that it realized more price on exports than the rates quoted by the custom authorities. DRP also did not accept assessee\u2019s objections in its entirety. Tribunal accepted that these were the mistakes in the order of TPO, inasmuch as the TPO without realizing the factual aspects, simply rejected the method adopted by assessee. Order of Tribunal is affirmed. No substantial question of law.\u00a0 (AY.2012-13)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 92C : Transfer pricing \u2013 Arm\u2019s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Most appropriate method-TNMM-CUP Method-Export of rice-Order of Tribunal accepting the method adopted by the appellant is affirmed \u2013 No substantial question of law. [S. 260A]<\/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-47812","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-cra","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47812","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=47812"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47812\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":47813,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47812\/revisions\/47813"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47812"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47812"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47812"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}