Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

-" (emphasis supplied) Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd (ITA Nos.1068 & 1070/2011) wherein it was held as under:

"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, (iii) cost plus method, (iv) profit split method and (v) transactional net marginal method (TNMM)."

14.17 We are further in agreement with the ld. Counsel of the assessee that Rule 10B(1) states that for the purpose of section 92C(2) the arms length price shall be determined by one of the ITA NO. 5857/Del/2012 five methods which is found to be 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, (iii) cost plus method, (iv) profit split method and (v) transactional net marginal method (TNMM). The assessee has rightly considered the comparable uncontrolled price method for determining the arms length price. In this context, the conclusion of the TPO that the arms length price of the royalty payment should be NIL without specifying any cogent basis is not sustainable. The TPO's determination is on the basis of assumption and surmises. Hence, the adjustment made by the TPO is liable to be deleted.