Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 199/209 Page | 10 Taxman 200/345 ITR 241 has held that the TPO does not have power to adjudicate the allowance/disallowance of expenditure incurred by the assessee thereby demolishing the need and benefit derived by the assessee. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court read as under:

"15. It seems to us that the decision taken by the Tribunal is the right decision. The TPO applied the CUP method while examining the payment of brand fee/royalty. The CUP method which in its expanded form is known as "comparable uncontrolled price" method is provided for in Rule 10B(l)(a) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. It is one of the methods recognised for determining the ALP in relation to an international transaction. Rule 10B(1) says that for the purposes of Section 92C(2), the ALP shall be determined by any one of the five methods, which is found to be the most appropriate method, and goes on to lay down the manner of determination of the ALP under each method. The five methods recognized by the rule are (i) comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP), (ii) re-sale price method, {in) cost plus method, (iv) profit split method and (v) transactional net marginal method (TNMM). The manner by which the ALP in relation to an international transaction is determined under CUP is prescribed in clause (a) of the sub-rule (1) of Rule 10B.