← All Phrases

“resale price method”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C129 judgments

The decision most relied on for resale price method is Asstt. CIT v. MSS India (P.) Ltd. (32 SOT 132), cited in 26 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on resale price method

Asstt. CIT v. MSS India (P.) Ltd.
32 SOT 132 · 2009 · ITAT
26
citing judgments

The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is preferred when comparable transactions with third parties are available to determine if transfer prices are at arm's length. Transactional profit methods are considered methods of last resort.

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.

16. In Nokia India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
153 ITD 508 · 2015 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Incurring high advertisement and marketing expenses does not preclude the use of the Resale Price Method (RPM) for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) under transfer pricing provisions. The ratio of related party transactions (RPTs) calculation requires careful consideration of the numerator and denominator to accurately reflect transactions with associated enterprises.

Bose Corporation India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
53 Taxmann.com 432 · 2015 · High Court
17
citing judgments

The Resale Price Method (RPM) is considered the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price (ALP) in cases involving distribution or marketing activities where goods are purchased from associated enterprises and sold to unrelated parties without further processing.

(1) Horiba India Pvt. Ltd. v. OCIT
81 Taxmann.com 209 · 2017 · High Court
16
citing judgments

When an assessee is a pure distributor and sells goods purchased from associated enterprises without value addition, the Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions over the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).

Judgments citing resale price method

M/S. Laxmi Organic Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4782/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate andFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 80I

that the arm's length price "shall be determined by any of the following (specified) methods namely (a) comparable uncontrolled price method; (b) resale price method (c) cost plus method; (d) profit split method; (e) transactional net margin method; (f) any other method, as prescribed by the Board

Daido India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Gurgaon

ITA 5761/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

certain extent, functional dissimilarities are subsumed and taken care of at the net margin level as compared to the gross margin in Resale Price Method (RPM) comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method." 11. Further, even the Ld. DRP also mentioned that all the comparable companies selected by the TPO are into

Spectraforce Technologies (India) Private Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2853/PUN/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan and Shri Abhiroop Bhargav KFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

under the principles of paragraphs 3.9-3.12). Thus, a transactional net margin method operates in a manner similar to the cost plus and resale price methods. This similarity means that in order to be applied reliably, the transactional net margin method must be applied in a manner consistent with

Samsung Sdi India Pvt Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5475/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

intermediary activities where a taxpayer purchases goods from an associated enterprise and on-sells them to other associated enterprises. In such cases, the resale price method may not be applicable given the absence of uncontrolled sales, and a cost plus method that would provide for a mark

Samsung Sdi India Pvt Ltd, Noida vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 3472/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

ITA No.3472 & 5475/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32(1)

selling the same to the Indian customers. For benchmarking the said international transaction of import of finished goods, the assessee adopted the Resale Price Method (“RPM”) as the most appropriate method. By considering itself the tested party, the assessee identified four comparable companies with an arithmetic mean gross margin ... Rule 10B(1)(b) of the Rules reads as follows: "Section 10B(1)(b) in Income Tax Rules, 1962 (b) resale price method, by which,- (i) the price at which property purchased or services obtained by the enterprise from an associated enterprise is resold or are provided to an unrelated

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune vs. M/S. IAC International Automotive India Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 749/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Anand
Section 143(2)Section 92Section 92C

functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors as the Board may prescribe, namely:- (a) Comparable uncontrolled price method; (b) resale price method; (c) cost plus method; (d) profit split method; (e) transactional net margin method; (f) such other method as may be prescribed by the Board

Asandas & Sons Private Limited, Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1854/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 144C(5)Section 920

such other relevant factors as the Board may prescribe. Five specific methods have been set out, namely, (a) comparable uncontrolled price method; (b) resale price method; (c) cost plus method; (d) profit split method; (e) transactional net margin method. Thereafter, another method is given in clause (1), namely, such other ... adjustment on account of unutilized capacity. The Tribunal observed that the most appropriate method, in the facts of the case, was the Resale price method (RPM). It accordingly directed to apply the RPM. The Revenue, in its appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, insisted that it was not open

Timken India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 92/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri K.M.Gupta/Krishan Shaw, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234D

submission that during the relevant impugned assessment year, the AO rejected the TNMM method applied by the assessee and applied the resale price method for benchmarking the international transactions of purchase of finished goods, such as bearings for resale in the distribution segment without appreciating the business models ... gross profit margin at 12.38% in respect of sales in regard to related products. It was the submission that for the application of resale price method, the same is normally applicable to distributors who are carrying risk in the market and stock inventory. It was the submission that in respect

Troy Chemical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5933/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer SinghFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9

sell to the Company." 6. For benchmarking the international transaction of purchase of finished goods and purchase return, the assessee adopted the Resale Price Method (“RPM") as the most appropriate method. By considering itself as a tested party, the assessee identified 22 comparable companies with 35th to 65th percentile range ... Rule 10B(1)(b) of the Rules reads as follows: - “Section 10B(1)(b) in Income Tax Rules, 1962 (b) resale price method, by which,- (i) the price at which property purchased or services obtained by the enterprise from an associated enterprise is resold or are provided to an unrelated

DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai vs. Era Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 3096/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Bleshri Girish Agrawal, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 92C

transaction as per method prescribed therein. The TPΟ has not followed any of the prescribed method, i.e. CUP, Transaction Net Margin Method, Resale Price Method, Profit Split Method or any other method prescribed in the Act/ Rules. The TPO has merely doubted the identity and creditworthiness of the investor ... transfer pricing officer is required to determine ALP using prescribed method such as (CUP)comparable uncontrolled price method, transaction net margin method (TNMM), resale price method (RPM) or profit split method (PSM) or any other method. The TPO did not adopted any of the prescribed method but instead question

Bock Compressors India Private, Bengaluru vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle - 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1484/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ves, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Uday Kakne, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144(5)Section 144CSection 234BSection 253Section 270ASection 920Section 92ASection 92C

determined by the Appellant and rejecting the methodical benchmarking analysis carried out by the Appellant in its Transfer Pricing Study Report using Resale Price Method (RPM) accordance with Section 920 and Section 920 of the Act read with Rule 10B, 10C and 10D of the Income-tax Rules

Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 11.1, Kolkata

ITA 2319/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, AR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

imported in FY 2012-13. 7(d) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/AO erred in applying Resale Price Method ('RPM') and holding that closer product comparability is not essential. ITA No.78, 2681/Kol/2018 & ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1801/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ AO erred in applying Resale Price Method ('RPM') and holding that closer product comparability is not essential. ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser ... this respect, assessee has bench-marked the purchase of finished goods imported from AEs amounting to Rs.40,11,48,074/- by using resale price method. Ld. TPO found functional difference in the comparables and recomputed the gross profit margin of 37.06% to arrive at the ALP of imported goods

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2631/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ AO erred in applying Resale Price Method ('RPM') and holding that closer product comparability is not essential. ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser ... this respect, assessee has bench-marked the purchase of finished goods imported from AEs amounting to Rs.40,11,48,074/- by using resale price method. Ld. TPO found functional difference in the comparables and recomputed the gross profit margin of 37.06% to arrive at the ALP of imported goods

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ AO erred in applying Resale Price Method ('RPM') and holding that closer product comparability is not essential. ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser ... this respect, assessee has bench-marked the purchase of finished goods imported from AEs amounting to Rs.40,11,48,074/- by using resale price method. Ld. TPO found functional difference in the comparables and recomputed the gross profit margin of 37.06% to arrive at the ALP of imported goods

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

ITA 2681/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 92BSection 92C

imported in FY 2012-13. 7(d) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/AO erred in applying Resale Price Method ('RPM') and holding that closer product comparability is not essential. 6 ITA No.78, 2681/Kol/2018 & ITA Nos. 2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser

Rehau Polymers Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

ITA 658/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Hitendra B Ninawe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors as the Board may prescribe, namely:- (a) Comparable uncontrolled price method; (b) resale price method; (c) cost plus method; (d) profit split method; (e) transactional net margin method; (f) such other method as may be prescribed by the Board

Fujitsu India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 693/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Fujitsu India P. Ltd., Vs National Faceless Assessment Rectangale-1, D-4, Centre, District Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan: Aaacf4170D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate, Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar & Shri Kaskaran Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

spend ratio; 2.8. not appreciating that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT"), in the first round of proceedings held Resale Price Method ("RMP") as the most appropriate method ("MAM") for the trading segment. Using RPSM as the MAM for the alleged AMP expenses in the trading segment does

The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Hazira Lng. Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 558/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Office No.2008, Westgage Vs Ahmedabad. Block-D, Makarba, Sg Highway Ahmedabad 380051. Pan : Aaach 9143 C Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs (Formerly Known As M/S.Hqzira Lng P.Ltd.) Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaach 9143 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate, Shri Vishal Kalra & Ss Tomar, Ars. Revenue By : Shri (Dr.) Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathese Are Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 23.09.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita No.435 & 558/Ahd/2022

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri (Dr.) Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250Section 92D

spot basis. Considering the functional and risk profile of these transactions and examining the availability of comparable data, the assessee had selected Resale Price Method ("RPM"), using Gross Profit margin ('GPM’) per MMBTU as the profit level indicator ("PLI") ,as the most appropriate methodology for benchmarking the transaction. A search ... above discussion, respectfully following the order of the jurisdictional appellate tribunal in appellant's own case, the AO is directed to accept the resale price method as the most appropriate method for the purpose of benchmarking the international transaction of the appellant with respect to import of LNG and resale