← All Phrases

“most appropriate method”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C1,345 judgments

The decision most relied on for most appropriate method is CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. (367 ITR 730), cited in 120 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on most appropriate method

CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 730 · 2014 · High Court
120
citing judgments

This case determines the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for intra-group services and reimbursements, clarifying when charges constitute services warranting a mark-up versus mere pass-through costs. It provides guidance on the circumstances under which an ALP adjustment, including an ALP of 'nil', is appropriate for such transactions.

Dresser-Rand India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
13 Taxmann.com 82 · 2011 · High Court
43
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot disregard an assessee's decision to avail services from associated enterprises, even if the assessee has internal expertise, as the determination of necessity is the assessee's prerogative. The Transfer Pricing Officer's role is to determine the arm's length price, not the need for the service itself.

CIT v. EHPT India P Ltd.
350 ITR 41 · 2013 · High Court
41
citing judgments

The headcount method is an appropriate allocation key for indirect expenses between eligible and non-eligible units when it has been consistently accepted by revenue authorities and there is no just cause for abandoning it. Deviation from a consistently followed and accepted method can disturb or distort profits.

Mobis India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
38 Taxmann.com 231 · 2013 · ITAT
38
citing judgments

A working capital adjustment is unreliable if it is based on broad approximations, estimations, and assumptions, and the assessee fails to demonstrate how the adjustment was arrived at.

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
29 Taxmann.com 300 · 2013 · High Court
37
citing judgments

The 'bright line test' is not an appropriate method for determining the existence of an international transaction for calculating arm's length price. This ruling overrules prior special bench decisions on AMP expenses.

Magneti Marelli Powertrain India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
389 ITR 469 · 2016 · High Court
35
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) or Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot dispute the application of the TNMM method if they have already accepted it as the most appropriate method for certain international transactions, especially when other transactions are intrinsically linked.

Skoda Auto India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, Aurangabad
30 SOT 319 · 2009 · ITAT
26
citing judgments

The Tribunal may allow adjustments for differences between the tested party and comparable companies to eliminate material differences, provided accurate and credible evidence is furnished.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6 v. Matrix Cellular International Services (P.) Ltd.
90 Taxmann.com 54 · 2018 · High Court
25
citing judgments

The Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price of a distributor who does not add significant value to the goods purchased.

Judgments citing most appropriate method

Bundy India Ltd., Baroda vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1764/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

cognizance of the Rule 10B(2),(3) & (4) of the Rules. As per TP study carried out by the assessee adopting TNMM as most appropriate method, the assessee had selected eightbroadly comparable independent companies to benchmark its international transactions under manufacturing and ITES segment. Out of 8 companies

ACIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bofa Securities India Limited (Earlier Known As Dsp Merrill Lynch Ltd ), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6175/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

TNMM method for benchmarking these transactions. (b) The TPO/ CIT(A) ought to have held that, assuming without admitting that CUP is the most appropriate method: (i) The comparables adopted for the purpose of benchmarking ought to have been the weighted average brokerage charged for Top 10 all third party ... business in the following manner:- “Considering the above, the contention of the company that, the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method is not the most appropriate method, is not acceptable and, accordingly rejected. In this case, the internal comparables are available and the data maintained by the company for such uncontrolled transactions

M/S Bofa Securities India Limited (Formerly Known As A Dsp Merill Lynch Ltd ), Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 5864/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2003-04
Section 143(3)

TNMM method for benchmarking these transactions. (b) The TPO/ CIT(A) ought to have held that, assuming without admitting that CUP is the most appropriate method: (i) The comparables adopted for the purpose of benchmarking ought to have been the weighted average brokerage charged for Top 10 all third party ... business in the following manner:- “Considering the above, the contention of the company that, the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method is not the most appropriate method, is not acceptable and, accordingly rejected. In this case, the internal comparables are available and the data maintained by the company for such uncontrolled transactions

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bofa Securities India Limited (Earlier Known As M/S Dsp Merrill Lynch Limited ), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5425/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

TNMM method for benchmarking these transactions. (b) The TPO/ CIT(A) ought to have held that, assuming without admitting that CUP is the most appropriate method: (i) The comparables adopted for the purpose of benchmarking ought to have been the weighted average brokerage charged for Top 10 all third party ... business in the following manner:- “Considering the above, the contention of the company that, the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method is not the most appropriate method, is not acceptable and, accordingly rejected. In this case, the internal comparables are available and the data maintained by the company for such uncontrolled transactions

Bofa Securities India Limited (Formerly Known As Dsp Merill Lynch Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5416/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2002-03
Section 143(3)

TNMM method for benchmarking these transactions. (b) The TPO/ CIT(A) ought to have held that, assuming without admitting that CUP is the most appropriate method: (i) The comparables adopted for the purpose of benchmarking ought to have been the weighted average brokerage charged for Top 10 all third party ... business in the following manner:- “Considering the above, the contention of the company that, the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method is not the most appropriate method, is not acceptable and, accordingly rejected. In this case, the internal comparables are available and the data maintained by the company for such uncontrolled transactions

D.Light Energy Private Limited, Gurgoan vs. ACIT, Circle -7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 516/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.516/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) D Light Energy P. Ltd., Unit No. 102, Block B, Pegasus One, First Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector-53, Gurgaon 122001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabcj9318G बनाम Vs. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Hari Om Jindal, Ar "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 260 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Eight Grounds Of Appeal. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are In Respect Of A Single Issue I.E. Adjustment Of Rs. 6,94,53,296/- On Account Of International Transaction Of Purchase Of Solar Goods/Lights & Reimbursement Of Expenses & Warranty Cost Claim.

For Appellant: Shri Hari Om Jindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

India. The assessee re-sales solar products purchased from AEs without any value addition. The assessee adopted Resale Price Method (RPM) as the most appropriate method to benchmark the transaction. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee entered into following international transactions in relation to purchase ... claimed loss of Rs. 9,45,78,855/- 3 4. The TPO rejected RPM and applied Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method. The TPO held that the transaction of warranty claims is clearly linked to the transaction of purchase of solar goods. Thus

Inabensa Bharat Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8128/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.8128/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Inabensa Bharat P. Ltd., A-225, Double Story, Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabci0386D बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(1), C.R Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(6) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. This Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee In December 2018. Initially The Assessee Was Represented By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate. The Assessee Had Filed An Application For Early Hearing Of Appeal. The Same Was Allowed By The Tribunal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

international transactions. To benchmark the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transactions, the assessee applied Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method. The TPO vide order dated 26.10.2017 rejected TNMM in trading segment and applied RPM as most appropriate method. In engineering services segment

DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Fidelity Information Services India Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1328/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate and Ms. Sumisha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 37(1)

transaction of provision of software development services and reimbursement of expenses as so described therein and TNMM has been determined as per the most appropriate method with the assessee being the tested party and operating profit margin being the PLI and it has been provided that the reimbursement of expenses ... mandated in the APA has carried out the compliance audit in terms of checking whether the ALP and most appropriate method has been applied by the assessee in the modified return of income and has returned no adverse finding in this regard. The AO has taken cognizance of the order

Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore, India vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore, India

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/BANG/2024[AY 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

whereas the year in question is F.Y .2008-09 relevant to A.Y. 2009-10. Since the Most Appropriate Method chosen by the Assessee, CUP requires strict comparability which is lacking in the Assessee's case, the Panel is of the opinion thåt the TP study undertaken by the Assessee ... risk adjustment of 4%. 2.1.4.5 We have perused the Assessee's arguments. The TPO has identified proper comparables after adopting CUP as the Most Appropriate Method and during the search process included those key words such as Unsecured, for payment risk, Rupee for Payment Currency and coupon type as Fixed

Satyam Venture Engineering Services Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and for statistical purpose

ITA 192/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 192/Hyd/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyam Venture Assistant Commissioner Engineering Services Vs. Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(2), Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aafcs3287D] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri E.V. Sri Krishna, ARFor Respondent: Ms. L. Sunitha Rao, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

assessee filed this appeal. ITA-TP No. 192/Hyd/2021 2. Three issues need adjudication in this appeal. One is determination of the most appropriate method to benchmark the international transaction in respect of IT enabled Services (ITeS), second one is related to the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment in respect ... have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. On the aspect of adoption of the most appropriate method, in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2009-10, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal held that:- Page

Trend Micro India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 8751/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Trend Micro India Private Limited, Vs Acit, 10Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Circle-25(2), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacct2082Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate & Shri S.S. Tomar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

made certain adjustments by increasing the amount of Rs. 1,49,29,635/- by applying the TNMM Method treating the most appropriate method. While enhancing the valuation, he made comparable analysis of operating profit/operating cost (OP/OC) as the profit level indicator of 10 companies by rejecting 05 comparable companies identified

Luminous Teleinfra Ltd. (Now Merged With Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range- 05, New Delhi

In the result, the application of the assessee for limited purpose

ITA 6997/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 80

domestic transaction of purchase of goods by the assessee to its AE, Luminous Power Technologies Pvt Ltd (LPTPL), has considered internal TNMM as most appropriate method. The assessee has taken the operating profitability on cost for sale made to the third party Amar Raja Batteries Ltd (ARBL) for comparison

The Dy. CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Invida India Pvt.Ltd. ( Now Known As Menarini India Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1316/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

3CEB report. The Assessing Officer observed from the same that for the purpose of benchmarking this payment the assessee has considered CUP as most appropriate method. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not provided any record of the uncontrolled transactions taken into account for analysing their comparability with ... approval was incorrect and erroneous. During the course of proceedings, the assessee submitted a search process after taking TNMM as the most appropriate method and conducting a search for which the details were submitted vide letter dated 08.03.2013. The Assessing Officer also held that TNMM analysis is also incorrect

DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Htc India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1785/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kr. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

that the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction etc., namely (a) comparable uncontrolled price method; (b) resale price method; (c) cost ... method; (e) transactional net margin method; (f) such other method as may be prescribed by the Board. Sub-section (2) provides that the most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (1) shall be applied for determining ALP in the manner as may be prescribed. Thus, it can be noticed

Takenaka India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. JCIT (OSD) Circle-25(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 5581/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Takenaka India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Cit (A)-44, First Floor, Tower-C, Vatika First New Delhi. India Place, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aadct6143P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashutosh Mohan Rastogi & Shri Dhruv Seth, Adv. Respondent By Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Cit(A)”)-44, New Delhi Dated 24.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Correctness Of The Order On Following Grounds:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

April, 2024 we submit below a composite synopsis for consideration of the Hon'ble Bench: I. Reasons why CUP should be the Most Appropriate Method (Ground Nos. 4.1 to 4.3) i. Traditional transaction methods viz. CUP Method, RPM and CPM are regarded as the most direct means of establishing whether ... technical fees. However, the assessing officer for reasons mentioned in TP order rejected the CUP method and applied the TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method. The Assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) which was decided in favour of the Revenue. Hence, the Assessee has filed an appeal before

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3093/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w SamkitFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80Section 80ISection 92Section 92B

unit at Mithapur at a cost of Rs. 39,88,16,944/-. In the TP report the assessee has followed CUP as the most appropriate method whereby the assessee has stated that the price charged by the eligible unit are compared with the prices charged by Gujarat Electricity Board

Tata International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 14(3)1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1195/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth SR.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

documentation. In respect of the LOCs issued by the appellant to its AEs, the TPO selected Comparable Uncontrolled Price method ("CUP") as the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price of this transaction and in determining the price, the TPO mentioned that Indian bank charged

Clsa India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6232/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Clsa India Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit Ltu 29Th Floor, Centre 1 World Trade Formerly Known As Clsa India Ltd. Vs. 8/F Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Centre, Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2262 K (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarpekar, Shri Paras Savla : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Sr. Ar & Respondent By Shri A. K. Ambastha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2024

Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

learned AO /learned CIT(A) failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish that Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM") is not the Most Appropriate Method ('MAM') for the determination of the arm's length price ('ALP') in respect of the transaction pertaining to provision of broking services to associated ... therefore, the charges on unrelated parties cannot be compared with that of the related parties. The assessee reiterated that TNMM is the most appropriate method for bench marking the said 8 CLSA India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT LTU transaction. The ld. TPO not convinced with the assessee’s reply

ACIT., Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 349/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

follows, Page 9 of 82 "For the determination the ALP of the. Fee on the corporate Guarantee, the TPO chose 'CUP' as the most appropriate method as other methods are not applicable for this transaction. The following facts were considered to determine the ALP of transaction. i) When the assessee

ACIT., Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 348/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

follows, Page 9 of 82 "For the determination the ALP of the. Fee on the corporate Guarantee, the TPO chose 'CUP' as the most appropriate method as other methods are not applicable for this transaction. The following facts were considered to determine the ALP of transaction. i) When the assessee