← 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

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Kendle India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3430/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. K. Narasimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No.3430/Del/2016) (For Assessment Year : 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Kendle India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Office No.438, 4Th Floor, Circle-2, Gurgaon. Regus Centre, (Saket Pvt. Ltd.) Rectangle One, Commercial Complex, D-4, New Delhi – 110 017 Pan No. Aacck 4960 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri T. D. Singh Shri Navnit Kumar, Adv. Revenue By Adjournment Application Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Dcit Vs. Kendle India Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2010-11 2 2. Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals: 1. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Restriction The Disallowance Of Entire Amount Of Rs.13068947/-, Made By The Ao, To 50%, Without Appreciating The Fact That Arm’S Length Price In This Transaction Was Determined To Be ‘Nil’ As No Uncontrolled Enterprise Would Have Paid Any Amount For Services Which Do Not Tantamount To Intra Group Services With Comparable Benefits.

interest on LIBOR plus 150 basis point ignoring the fact that the TPO had applied the interest rate at 14.88% by applying the most appropriate method for calculating Arm’s Length Price. 3. Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the disallowance of interest