Bristol-Myers Squibb India Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Dcit Cir. 6(1), Mumbai on 1 September, 2021
13. We shall now advert to the observations of the TPO/DRP on the basis of
which the application of RPM by the assessee for benchmarking its
transactions with the AE had been rejected by them. As is discernible from the
orders of the lower authorities, the core issue that had weighed in the mind of
the lower authorities while rejecting the RPM as the most appropriate method
was that neither the complete information about the business profile and
financial data of the comparables selected by the assessee was available in the
public domain, nor the same was furnished by the assessee. We have given a
thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid observations of the TPO/DRP and are
unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by them. We are of
the considered view that in case the A.O was of the view that the complete
information about the business profile and financial data in respect of the
aforesaid comparables was not available, then the remedy available with him
was to search for fresh comparables. However, merely for the reason that the
comparable selected by the assessee were not found to be appropriate could
not have by any means justified rejection of the aforesaid method adopted by
the assessee for benchmarking the ALP of its international transactions. Our
aforesaid view is fortified by the order of the ITAT, Bangalore bench in the case
of CIT Vs. Sanyo India Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 45 CCH 98 (Bang) and also the order of the
ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Burberry India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Circle-5(1), New
Delhi (ITA No. 758/Del/2017, dated 22.06.2018).