9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 904 - HC - Income TaxTP adjustment - application of the Resale Price Method (RPM) as the Most Appropriate Method ( MAM ) - authorities below have found that 95% of the business of the assessee involves trading activity - HELD THAT - As the mere fact that the assessee had relied on TNMM in its transfer pricing report would not in any way preclude the ITAT from adopting the RPM as the MAM under Section 92C of the Act, if it so finds in the circumstances of the case. The decision of Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1965 (4) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT is an authority for the proposition that tax authorities and adjudications as well as assessee are not precluded by the positions taken in returns, documents or accounts and have the duty (and a corresponding right) to apply the correct legal principle. Thus, the use of one method in a transfer pricing report does not estop the assessee from later claiming that another method is the most appropriate one, provided that is indeed the correct position. See MATRIX CELLULAR INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (P.) LTD., 2017 (11) TMI 1655 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that use of one method in a transfer pricing report does not estop the assessee from later claiming that another method is the most appropriate one, provided that is indeed the correct position. No substantial question of law.
Issues:
Challenge to ITAT order on selection of Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for transfer pricing. Analysis: The appellant challenged the ITAT order, arguing that the ITAT erred in relying solely on a previous decision without considering the differences in facts. The appellant also contended that the selection of the Resale Price Method (RPM) as the MAM was not under challenge before lower authorities, as the appellant had applied the Trans Net Margin Method (TNMM) in the Transfer Pricing (TP) Study. However, the court noted that 95% of the appellant's business involved trading activity, similar to the case of M/s Mattel Toys India Pvt. Ltd. The court highlighted that the ITAT has the authority to adopt a different method as the MAM, even if the appellant had used a different method in the TP report, citing legal precedents like Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer. The court referred to the decision in Matrix Cellular International Services Pvt. Ltd. where the RPM method was upheld as the MAM for determining the arms' length price. The court emphasized that the RPM is suitable when the reseller does not add value to the product, as in cases of distribution or marketing activities where goods are purchased from associated entities and sold to unrelated parties without further processing. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the ITAT should not have applied RPM as the MAM since the TNMM was used in the TP study, stating that the ultimate aim of the transfer pricing exercise is to determine an accurate arms' length price for taxation purposes. Conclusively, the court found no substantial question of law in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the ITAT's decision to apply the RPM as the MAM for computing the arms' length price. The court reiterated that tax authorities and assessees are not bound by the method used in the TP report and have the right to apply the correct legal principle, even if it differs from the method initially chosen. In summary, the judgment addressed the challenge to the ITAT order regarding the selection of the Most Appropriate Method for transfer pricing, emphasizing the authority of the ITAT to adopt a different method based on the circumstances of the case. The court upheld the application of the Resale Price Method as the Most Appropriate Method in the given scenario, highlighting the importance of determining an accurate arms' length price for taxation purposes.
|
