Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)
M/S Trl Riceland Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly ... vs Addlcit, New Delhi on 12 October, 2021 cites

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, vs Klassic Wheels Pvt. Ltd.,, on 29 August, 2019

CIT v. MSS India (P.) Ltd. (2009) 32 SOT 132 (Pune), a Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, speaking through one of us (i.e. the AM), had, inter alia, observed that "While there is no particular order or priority of methods which the assessee must follow, and no method can invariably be considered to be more reliable than others, on a conceptual note, transactional profit methods (i.e., TNMM and profit split method) are treated as methods of last resort which are pressed into service only when the standard methods, which are also termed as 'traditional methods' (i.e., CUP method, resale price method and cost plus method) cannot be reasonably applied". It was noted by the Coordinate Bench that the OECD Guidelines also recognize this approach, and the Bench expressed its considered agreement with this approach. We are in considered agreement with the views so expressed by the Co-ordinate Bench. In our considered view, the traditional transaction methods have an inherent edge over the traditional profit methods in most of the situations, and, therefore, wherever both the methods can be applied in an equally reliable manner, traditional transaction methods are to be preferred over traditional profit methods.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 1 - Cited by 181 - Full Document

Asstt. Cit, Circle 5(8) vs Tanna Electro Mechanics (P.) Ltd. on 26 October, 2005

18. The first thing we have noticed is that the assessee has determined arm's length price of its transactions with the AEs by comparing average export price by the assessee to its AEs with the average uncontrolled export price. This approach is patently incorrect inasmuch as while under rule 10B (1)(a)(i), it is indeed open to compute ALP on the basis of price charged in a comparable controlled transaction or 'a number of such transactions', but the arm's length price so computed is, under rule 10B(1)(a)(iii), taken as arm's length price in respect of property transferred in the international transaction. The expression 'the international transaction' referred to in rule 10B(1)(a)(iii) is used in singular and does not permit taking into account, unlike rule 10B(1)(a)(i), 'a number of such transactions'. While averaging is thus permissible for the uncontrolled transactions, each international transaction is to be taken on standalone basis. In our humble understanding, it is not open to the assessee to compare the average price in his transactions with AEs with average price in uncontrolled transactions. Dealing with a somewhat similar issue, though in the context of cost plus method of ascertaining the arm's length price, a coordinate bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Tara Ultimo (P.) Ltd. [2011] 47 SOT 401/13 taxmann.com 184 (Mum.), has explained this principle as follows:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1