Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: form 3cd :: cpt :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT RATES :: due date for vat payment :: VAT Audit :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: empanelment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
 
 
From the Courts »
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6 Vs. M/s. Mohan Export India Private Limited
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 Vs. Oriental International Co. Pvt. Ltd.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Vs. British Motor Car Co.(1934) Ltd
  Vidyadayani Shiksha Samiti vs. CIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Halcrow Consulting India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 ACIT vs. TRN Energy Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
 Aditya Chemicals Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Gayatri Aggarwal Vs. Income Tax Commissioner & Ors.
 Paradigm Geophysical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi
 Download Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017
 Pr CIT vs. Verizon India Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court)

Reebok India Co vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
August, 08th 2013

Transfer Pricing: Scope in the context of expenditure (royalty payment) explained

The assessee paid royalty at the rate of 5% to its associated enterprise and claimed that the same was at arm’s length basis by applying the CUP method. The TPO and DRP determined the ALP of the royalty at Nil on the basis that (a) the approval given by the Government for payment of royalty did not automatically mean that the transaction was at arm’s length; (b) the assessee had not furnished a cost benefit analysis, (c) the technology had in fact not helped the assessee in earning better margins. It was held that as the technology had not contributed to the assessee’s profitability and there was no commercial benefit received, no independent enterprise would have make payment for royalty for the technology and so its ALP had to be determined at Nil. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, HELD reversing the TPO & DRP:

(a) The TPO’s argument that the assessee need not have paid for the technology as it did not derive any benefit therefrom is not acceptable. The assessee is free to conduct business in the manner it deems fit and the commercial and business expediency of incurring any expenditure has to be seen from the assessee’s point of view. The Revenue cannot step into the shoe of the assessee and decide what is prudent for the business. On facts, the very survival of the assessee in the industry depended upon the licence and technology & know how provided by the AE. There has been a considerable increase in the sales figures and the growth in revenue clearly demonstrates the benefits derived by the assessee from the use of technology;

(b) the payment of royalty was approved by the Government of India. Though it is not conclusive proof, the said approval of the Government has to be given consideration while considering the arms length price of the transaction;

(c) Under Rule 10B(1)/ s. 92C(2), the arm’s length price has to be determined by one of the five methods which is found to be most appropriate method. While the assessee rightly considered the CUP method for determining the ALP, the TPO’s conclusion that the arms length price of the royalty payment should be NIL without specifying any cogent basis is not sustainable (EKL Appliances 345 ITR 241 (Del), Ericsson 146 TTJ 708 (Del), ThyssenKrupp Industries 154 TTJ 689(Mum), Dresser Rand 55 SOT 167 (Mum), SC Enviro Agro 143 ITD 195 (Mum) etc followed)

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Contact Us

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions