Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.4 not appreciating the fact that application of bright line test ("BLT") (intensity based adjustment) is not permissible in the light of the judicial precedents on the issue; and 3.5 failed to understand the business model of the Appellant and made several misstatements in the remand reports on several occasions during the course of proceedings before Ld. DRP.

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP and Ld. TPO have grossly erred in rejecting the profit split method ("PSM") analysis undertaken by the ^ Appellant during the course of proceedings. In doing so Ld. DRP/ Ld. TPO erred in;

4.1 not appreciating the analysis by application contribution profit split method furnished by the Appellant as an additional evidence during the course of proceedings before Ld. DRP to demonstrate that payment of royalty is at arm's length and appropriate share of residual profits belong to Tupperware India;

4.2 not appreciating the fresh analysis by application of residual profit split method ("RPSM") submitted by the Appellant during the course of remand back proceedings before Ld. DRP stating the same has been undertaken based on assumptions, approximations and insufficient evidences; and 4.3 conducting an incorrect RPSM analysis, splitting the profits by assigning weights to the research & development expenses incurred by Tupperware Products Inc. and ', AMP expenses incurred by the Appellant, thereby, leading to absurd results.

12.1.1 The assessee had submitted a fresh corroborative analysis using Profit Split Method ("PSM") before the Hon'ble DRP. The Hon'ble DRP forwarded the fresh corroborative analysis to the Ld. TPO calling for his comments /remand report. The Ld. TPO in his remand report specifically rejected PSM analysis which was also not adopted by the Hon'ble DRP as the most appropriate method.

12.1.2 The Ld. TPO in his remand report conducted a fresh analysis by adopting a search strategy similar to one adopted in the transfer pricing study by the assessee and one comparable was selected to arrive at an arm's length royalty rate of 2%. The Ld. TPO adopted CUP as the most appropriate method to benchmark the royalty transaction.

used in the manufacturing process is use of typical moulds which gives air tight finish to the containers and lids (covers). The assessee is making separate payment by means of rent for the use of "Special" moulds. Hence it is wrong to say that no payment was made for the use of technology.

As mentioned above the new benchmarking done by the assessee using Contribution profits split has inherent flaws. It is very subjective and is totally dependent on selection of factors and relative weightage given to them. As far as application of Contribution profits split method is concerned, the Panel agrees with the TPO that the method is too subjective to be accepted as method of benchmarking.