TRANSFER PRICING

Ο Sec. 92C – ACIT vs. Bagadiya Brothers (P.) Ltd.

[2017] 82 taxmann.com 24 (Ahd Trib.)

Assessee was exporting iron ore fines in bulk/loose from Indian ports to various Chinese ports and it established AE in foreign country which provided vessels to assessee as well as third parties.

Since AE and assessee were performing their respective business functions and assuming their business risk independently without interruption of each other, AE could not be considered as pure distributor and consequently Berry Ratio was not at all applicable and TNMM was most appropriate method as adopted by assessee

Ο Sec. 92C – Akzo Nobel India Ltd. vs. DCIT

[2017] 81 taxmann.com 366 (Kol Trib.)

Where assessee established that services were received from AE in order to meet specific need of the assessee and to derive economic and commercial benefits and as the same were received on a continuous basis across its operational areas, it was erroneous to classify services as stewardship/incidental/duplicate services and disallow expenses moreover when it is paid at arm’s length price