“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

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Komli Wedia India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.3889/Mum/2017 for A

ITA 3889/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Samruddhi D Hande, DR

Ld.CIT (A) erred in holding that the ITA Nos.3890 & 3889/Mum/2017 Komli Wedia India P. Ltd; AYs 11-12 & 12-13 Resale Price Method (RPM) was the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price of the assessee's international transaction in respect of purchase and sale of online ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the Resale Price Method (RPM) was the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price of the assessee's international transaction in respect of purchase and sale of online

M/S Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 181/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 181/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Quicklogic Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., No. 10 Brindavan, The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Yashoda Nagar Main Income Tax, Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Jakkur Plantation, Vs. Bangalore. Bengaluru – 560 064. Pan: Aaacq0656P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahaveer C Jain, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 25/01/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer C Jain, CA

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

from FY 2014-15 and onwards). These amended provisions are applicable only when the determination of 'ALP' is done under the MAM being resale price method ('RPM'), cost plus method ('CPM') or transactional net margin method ('TNMM'). The relevant provisions of Rule 10CA of the Rules

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Climate Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 729/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

Nos.729/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 16 6. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature requiring no specific adjudication. Adoption of Resale Price Method (RPM) as Most Appropriate Method(MAM) for distribution of Cold Storage Equipment Activity (Trading Segment) – Ground 7 7. The assessee imports traded goods from ... distributor where the goods are purchased from the AE and resold to other independent entities without any value addition, then the resale price method should be reckoned as most appropriate method. One of the main reason given by the TPO as well as the DRP is that the assessee

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7076/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Circle 11(3)(1) Torrecid India Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Plot No.29, 30, 31, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Alindra, Savli Gidc, Vadodara, Vadodara–391775 Mk Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct 4321 M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neelu Jaggi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

Torrecid India Private Limited; A.Y. 13–14 DRP further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the ld. AO/ld. TPO in rejecting the Resale Price Method (RPM) considered by the Appellant and selecting the Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") method, as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction ... determine Arm’s Length Price of the international transaction. 06. Assessee benchmarked the international transaction of a. Import of finished goods adopting the resale price method taking the profit level indicator of gross profit/sales where margin of the assessee was 15.35%, margin of the third parties was 14.60%, and therefore

Epson India Private Limited, Ulsoor vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 206/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 206/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Epson India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 12Th Floor, The Milenia, Commissioner Of Tower A, Income Tax, No. 1,Murphy Road, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ulsoor, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 008. Pan: Aaace7858F Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Orders Passed By Learned Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income- Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred As "Ao" For Brevity), Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tp) — 1(2)(1), Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred As "Tpo" For Brevity) & The Honourable Drp-1

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha

Business Support Services. The Business Support Services Segment was accepted as at Arm’s lengyh by the TPO. The assessee has chosen Resale Price Method (RPM) as the most appropriate method for the Trading (Distribution) segment and arrived at the average mean of gross profits margin(GPM) of 7 comparables

Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 288/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 288/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 143/1, Amani Bellandur Khane Village, The Joint Prestige Excelsior, Commissioner Of Prestige Tech Park, Income-Tax Marathalli – Sarjapur Outer (Osd), Ring Road, Circle 6 (1)(1), Vs. Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaics9204M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi On 30.04.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA

Section 92C(3)Section 92D

above, the Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the action of the Ld. TPO in selecting a combination of two methods, i.e., Resale Price Method and Other Method as the most appropriate method while undertaking the benchmarking analysis. 12.5. Without prejudice to the above grounds

M/S Harman International (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 49/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.49/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation India Private Limited, Income Tax, 4A, Jupiter, Prestige Technology Park, Circle - 3(1)(2), Sarjapur, Marathahalli Road, Bengaluru. Kadubeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aacch 1585 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

trading segment is concerned, the first dispute is with regard for the MAM to determine ALP. While the assessee chose Resale Price Method (RPM) as MAM in its TP study, the TPO chose TNMM as MAM. IT(TP)A No. 49/Bang/2019 Page 15 of 31 Gross profit earned

Liebherr India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2169/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald

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

transaction pertaining to commission segment, service segment and trading segment were benchmarked using Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP), Cost Plus Method (CPM) and Resale Price Method (RPM), respectively. However, for the Assessment Year 2012-13, the Appellant had adopted aggregation approach and determined ALP by using TNMM using entity level ... service segment were at arm‟s length. Accordingly, the TPO proceeded to determine ALP for international transaction pertaining to trading segment by adopting Resale Price Method (RPM) as the most appropriate method. The TPO computed gross profit margin for the trading segment at 0.28% and benchmarked the same against

Gea Process Engineering (India) P.Ltd, Gujrat vs. ITO, Mumbai

ITA 4338/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, M/S. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 Pan: Aaacl0566H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

form 3CEB as under: SL. Nature of transaction F.Y. 2007-08 (Rs) Method Used 1 Purchase of Components & 6,80,75,380 Resale Price Method Spares 2 Payment of Design & 1,86,83,436 Resale Price Method Engineering Fees 3 Receipt of Commission 1,19,51,956 Transactional Net Margin ... order to benchmark these three international transactions adopted different methods in all the three transactions viz. for import related transactions it has applied resale price method, for receipt commission; it has applied segmental TNMM and for supervisor assistance it has applied segmental TNMM. 16. However, the Ld. TPO rejected

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gea Process Engineering ()I) P.Ltd, Gujrat

ITA 4155/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly Known As the Himalaya Drug Company), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 259/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT -DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(11)Section 92C

functions performed by such persons OR such other relevant factors as the Board may prescribe, viz., (i) Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method; (ii) Resale Price Method; (iii) Cost Plus Method; (iv) Profit Split Method; (v) Transactional Net Margin Method; (vi) Such other method as may be prescribed by the Board

Enstage Software Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 260/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.260/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Enstage Software Private Limited, Dcit (Exemptions), Vs. 16/1, Wings, 2Nd Floor, Circle – 2(1)(1), Cambridge Road, Halsuru, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Aaace 9963 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

from FY 2014-15 and onwards). These amended provisions are applicable only when the determination of ‘ALP’ is done under the MAM being resale price method (‘RPM’), cost plus method (‘CPM’) or transactional net margin method (‘TNMM’). The relevant provisions of Rule 10CA of the Rules

M/S Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 35/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 92C

alone, but includes advertisement, marketing and sales promotion which are value addition functions for which the assessee is not adequately compensated. He adopted Resale Price Method (RPM) as the most appropriate method. The TPO chose 7 unrelated comparables and calculated the AMP as a % of sales of those comparables

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Usa vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 863/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

gross revenue from sale of Novell Software Products to such alleged DAPE without appreciating the Functions, Assets and 'Risks ('FAR) analysis including the Resale Price Method adopted by the Appellant. 4. Without Prejudice to the Ground No.1 to Ground No. 3, on the facts and in the circumstances

First Credit Ites P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt.Dy/CIT/ITO, National E -Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1183/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am First Credit Ites P. Ltd. The Addl. Commissioner Of D-211, Ghatkopar Indl. Estate, Income-Tax Officer Behind R-City Mall, National E-Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Vs. Centre, Ghatkopar West, Delhi-110003 Mumbai-400 086 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aabcf5210B Assessee By : Shri Sunil Moti Lala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, DR

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

decision of co-ordinate Bench in case of Mattel Toys India Pvt. Ltd. (TS-159-ITAT-2013 (Mum)-TP) wherein though assessee adopted resale price method as most appropriate method earlier, but ITAT found that the method may be changed, if changed method produces better or more appropriate Arms Length

Aquity Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Mmodel Global Services Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15 (2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1161/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms.Karishma R. Phatarphekar with S/Shri Harsh Shah/ Paras Savla/For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

most appropriate method in transfer pricing study. During First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that TNMM was not most appropriate method and Resale Price Method (RPM) should be adopted. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the same. The Tribunal held that if ALP of any transaction can be determined

Cbay Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 1351/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms.Karishma R. Phatarphekar with S/Shri Harsh Shah/ Paras Savla/For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkaihalli, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

M/S Adc India Communications Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 79/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.41/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Adc India Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) Communications Limited, V. Bangalore. 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Aaack6553H. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.79/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Adc India Communications The Assistant Commissioner Limited, 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Bangalore. Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, Ca Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2022

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9

appeal already filed, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/TPO erred in not adopting Resale Price Method (PRM) as the most appropriate method for determining the Arm’s Length Price of the international transactions in respect of import of traded goods ... Bench order in assessee’s own case, we direct the AO to consider whether the bench marking done by the assessee under the resale price method is as per the provisions of the Act read with the relevant Rules (since the lower authorities has scrutinized the benchmarking under the TNMM

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Adc India Communications Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9