“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

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

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

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

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

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

Shell Energy India Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 435/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

Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3089/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.(Tp)A. No.62/Chny/2018 & I.T.A. No. 3089/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2013-14 M/S. Kubota Agricultural Machinery Vs. The Asstt./Dy. Commissioner Of India Private Limited, No. 15, Income Tax, Medavakkam Road, Sholinganallur, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai 600 119. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aadck5472E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sampath Raghunathan, Advocate & Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals In It(Tp)A No. 62/Chny/2018 & Ita No. 3089/Chny/2017 Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 03.10.2018 & 10.10.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

nature and requires no adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the AO/DRP/TPO for rejecting Resale Price Method [RPM] as Most Appropriate Method [MAM] and erroneous application of Berry Ratio at the profit level indicator in the facts and circumstances ... No.62/Chny/18 & ITA No. 3089/Chny/17 of transactions are reflecting in para 4 of the TPO’s order. The assessee preferred Resale Price Method as most appropriate method in respect of transactions pertaining to purchase of goods from its Associated Enterprises (AE). The assessee was asked to explain in adopting resale price

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 9482/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu S. Sinha & Bhuwan Dhoopar, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) & Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

DRP/AO/TPO have erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 250,89,73,885/- in trading segment by rejecting Resale Price Method applied by the Assessee and instead applying TNMM as the MAM and by including companies that are not comparable to the Assessee in 5 Samsung India Electronics. terms ... service spares and provision of after sales support services. To determine the ami’s length price of these transactions, the assessee has chosen Resale Price Method (RPM) as the most appropriate method and has aggregated all the transactions to determine the gross profit margin of the segment

Jushi India Fiberglass Private Limited, Lower Parel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 6(1)(2), Churchgate, Mumbai

In the results, in the comparability study after giving working capital

ITA 1163/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Londhe, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 92B

Jushi India Fiberglass Private Limited 2 3. Hon'ble DRP and consequently the learned AO erred in facts and in law in adopting Resale Price Method ("RPM") as most appropriate method for determination of ALP of the transaction of purchase of goods from AE. 4. Hon"ble DRP and consequently ... assessee is not doing any value addition and the products imported from AEs are sold in the market, therefore, consider the FAR analysis, Resale Price Method (RPM), is to be considered as a Most Appropriate Method (MAM) as adopted by the TPO. 7. During the year under consideration, the assessee

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)

Associated Enterprises (AEs) for resale in 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 ... further referred to United Nations Article Manual on Transfer Pricing to contend that though product comparability is less important under resale price method, greater product similarity is likely to provide reliable transfer pricing results. He asserted that the assessee has been paying huge costs towards payments to contractors, professional technical

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

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 plus method; (d) profit split method; (e) transactional net margin method; (f) such other method as may be prescribed by the Board

M/S. Spectris Technologies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1818/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Dabas, Sr. DR

against results of comparables using three years data at 22.48%. For the international transaction relating to 'Purchase for normal sales', assessee has used Resale Price Method (RP ) with PLI of gross margin/selling price. The tested party margin of the assessee has been calculated at 22.18% as against

Pr. CIT-9, Mumbai vs. M/S Best Seller Fashion India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 4783/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Best Seller Fashion India Pr. Cit-9 Pvt. Ltd. Room No.65A, 6Th Floor, Lalit Residency, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, The Lalit Mumbai, Vs. M.K. Road, Sahar Airport, Sahar, Churchgate-400 020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400 059 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb2906M Assessee By : Shri Harsh Kumar & Shri Jabir Contractor, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kumar &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, DR

Section 143(3)

holding that in rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) adopted by the TPO as the most appropriate method and directing to adopt Resale Price Method (RPM) without appreciating the fact that assessee itself had adopted TNMM for its benchmarking analysis method in subsequent years ... international transaction. 04. Assessee entered into international transaction of import of goods of ₹43,73,14,940/- benchmarked it by the using resale price method as most appropriate method, compared the gross profit as ratio of direct cost of goods sold as PLI, used prowess data base, selected five comparable

Luxottica India Eyewear Private Ltd., Haryana vs. Circle 13(1), Delhi

ITA 793/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 793/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Vs. Dcit Ltd. Circle 13(1), 7Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Pan : Aabcl3871C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao &For Respondent: Sh. Manvendra Goyal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92C

ITAT had directed the Ld. TPO to follow the directions issued in Appellant’s case for AY 2012-13 wherein intensity adjusted Resale Price Method (‘RPM’) was ultimately used as the most appropriate method. Since Department had not filed any appeal against the ITAT order ... international transactions to the TPO, who 9 observed that the assessee benchmarked its international transaction of 'Import of finished goods’ with the Resale Price Method (RPM) as the most appropriate method. The assessee claimed that the import of finished goods by the assessee was at ALP. The TPO noticed that

Karcher Cleaning Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT Spl. Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposed

ITA 4986/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)

conducted by the Appellant in its transfer pricing (“TP”) documentation on frivolous grounds; 3 Karcher Cleaning Systems, ND 3.4 disregarding the application of Resale Price Method on frivolous grounds; 3.5 upholding the application of Transactional Net Margin Method (“TNMM”) to determine the arm’s length price (“ALP”) of international transaction ... requires no adjudication and further submitted that except Ground No. 3 and its sub grounds which are in respect of disregarding application of resale price method by the Ld. TPO/A.O and Ground No. 8 regarding inclusion of certain Companies in the final set of comparable all other Grounds

Haier Appliances India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, It & Tp Delhi 2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 417/DEL/2022[2017-148]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2017-148

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92BSection 92F

adopting same ratio, rationale and parameters 20. Without prejudice to any other contentions, the AMP transaction can be benchmarked using the adjusted Resale Price Method (RPM) which is preferred by the HC over segregation approach in Appellant's own case. 21. The TPO /AO erred on facts

Rosoboronservice (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground number 2 – 6 [ except 4, of the appeal are restored to the file of the learned AO/TPO to benchmark the international transaction afresh by selecting first the A

ITA 7255/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Rosoboronservice (India) Limited Income Tax-15(3)(1) R-700, Ttc Industrial Estate, Room No. 473, Aayakar P.O. Ghansoli, Midc Rabale, Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400701 Bhawan, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcr0040B Assessee By : Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92(3)Section 92C

also paid technical Services fee of Rs. 87,63,241/-. Both the transactions, taken together were benchmarked adopting the Resale Price Method [ RPM] as the Most Appropriate Method. For testing the margins, assessee took itself as Tested party, gross profit was A.Y.2014-15 M/s Rosoboronservice (India) Ltd considered as profit level ... assessee objected before the Ld. Dispute resolution panel. The direction was passed on 24.09.2018. The learned dispute resolution panel held that a. resale price method is the most appropriate method instead of transactional net margin method adopted by the TPO. A.Y.2014-15 M/s Rosoboronservice (India) Ltd b. However, comparable selected

Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 1654/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

abandoned or discarded. 82. There is considerable tax literature and text that CUP Method, i.e. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, RP Method, i.e. Resale Price Method and CP Method, i.e. Cost Plus Method can be applied to a transaction or closely linked, or continuous transactions. Profits Split Method and TNM Method

M/S Celio Future Fashion Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/CIT/Dy/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 741/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sumant ChadhaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 69CSection 920Section 92C

associated enterprise for the purpose of stock and sale in the domestic market. For benchmarking the said international transaction, the assessee applied Resale Price Method (“RSM”) as most appropriate method. The TPO vide order dated 05/01/2021, passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act rejected the benchmarking analysis conducted ... products. In the case of simple distribution of products, it has been consistently held in the above said case laws that the “Resale Price method” (RPM) is the most appropriate method. Under the RPM, the profits are compared at Gross Margin level, in which case, the expenses incurred on Advertisement

M/S Andritz Hydro Private Limited, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Circle 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 75/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Andritz Hydro Private Dcit Circe 1(1) Ltd. Bhopal Vs. D-17, Mpakvn Industrial Area, Mandideep Raisen (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcv 2466 R Assessee By Shri Rahul, Kaul Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

length price in respect of the property transferred or services provided in the international transaction [or the specified domestic transaction] ; (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

Aaacorp Exim India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T.-Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 966/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal & Aaa Corp Exim India Pvt. Ltd. C-206, Ghatkopar Industrial Estate, Off Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 086 Pan: Aacca8815C ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-14(1)(1) Income Tax Offices, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Yadav, Ld. DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80Section 80ASection 92B

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

Franklin Wardcorpp India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addll./Jt/ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2487/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

purchase of bottom loading tank truck fitting of ₹ 5,89,74,155/- from its Associated Enterprises. The assessee adopted Resale Price Method [ RPM] as the Most Appropriate Method. For benchmarking assessee submits that its Associated Enterprises has followed the practice of cost of purchase plus markup of 10% margin ... transaction is at Arm’s Length Price. 04. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the above benchmarking methodology stating that to justify the resale price method, no other comparables margins were used by the assessee to demonstrate that international transaction is at Arm’s Length Price. Therefore, the resale price

Franklin Wardcorpp India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/DIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1279/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

Sas Institute (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with above directions

ITA 1567/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Sas Institute (India) Private Tax, Circle 3(3) Limited Apeejay House, 3 Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 3, Dinshaw Wachha Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3149K Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U.Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U.Matkari, DR

Section 140Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

submitted that identical issue was considered where the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has not given any reason in rejecting the CUP method and resale price method adopted by the assessee in respect of royalty and other international transaction. He extensively referred to paragraph no.14 of the order dated 24th February

Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4062/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4062/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 15 Dsidc, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-10(2), Phase-Ii, Scheme-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg2938H Assessee By : Sh. Pancham Sethi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated Xx.02.2019 Passed By The Ao U/S 254/143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Sh. Pancham Sethi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C