← All Phrases

“cost plus method”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C204 judgments

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

Leading authorities on cost plus 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.

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.

Brigade Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
33 Taxmann.com 618 · 2013 · ITAT
11
citing judgments

A company engaged in outsourced ITES activities can be excluded as a comparable if a significant portion of its activities were outsourced, resulting in an abnormally low employee cost.

Judgments citing cost plus method

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1308/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1307/BANG/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1306/BANG/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R

M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 1305/BANG/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.1305 To 1308/Bang/2010 Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 Dcit, M/S. Transworld Ict Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. No.15, Hoody, Whitefield Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Mahadevapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 3824 F Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92C(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R

V2 Tech Ventures P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 777/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)

based associated enterprises V2 Solutions Inc, USA. The benchmarking was done on the basis of Cost Plus Method (CPM). A reference was made, by the Assessing Officer, to the Transfer Pricing Officer. In the ensuing proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the CPM method and adopted Transactional Net Margin Method

Kirloskar Toyota Textile Machinery Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 197/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.197/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Toyota Industries Engine India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Kirloskar Toyota Textile Circle – 11(5), Machinery Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. Plot No.09, 2Nd Phase, Jigani Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 105. Pan : Aaack 7425 Q Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ajit Tolani, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Tolani, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

adjustment, the selection of TNMM will not result in arriving at the ALP of the international transaction. In transactions method like RPM or Cost Plus method, the effect of these factors may be eliminated as natural consequences of insisting upon greater product of function similarity. Depending upon the facts

Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited (Formerly Sami Labs Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for both the years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3353/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Sami –Sabinsa Group Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Sami Labs Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 19/1 & 19/2, I Main, Income Tax, Ii Phase, Circle 6 (1)(1), Peenya Industrial Area, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aadcs2549E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Bhavya Bansal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Undated For A.Y. 2013-14 & 23.10.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore. The Above Appeals Are Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order As Common Issues Arises On Identical Facts. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Are Reproducing The Grounds Raised By Assessee For Assessment Year 2013-14. Page 2 Of 7 It(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal, CA
Section 92BSection 92C

2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018 3. At the outset, it is submitted that assessee bench marked the transaction of sale to the AE using Cost Plus Method (CPM) analysis, however, the Ld.TPO rejected the CPM analysis and used Transactional Net Margins Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method. 3.1 The Ld.AR at this juncture

M/S Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited (Formerly Sami Labs Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for both the years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2764/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Sami –Sabinsa Group Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Sami Labs Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 19/1 & 19/2, I Main, Income Tax, Ii Phase, Circle 6 (1)(1), Peenya Industrial Area, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aadcs2549E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Bhavya Bansal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Undated For A.Y. 2013-14 & 23.10.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore. The Above Appeals Are Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order As Common Issues Arises On Identical Facts. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Are Reproducing The Grounds Raised By Assessee For Assessment Year 2013-14. Page 2 Of 7 It(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal, CA
Section 92BSection 92C

2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018 3. At the outset, it is submitted that assessee bench marked the transaction of sale to the AE using Cost Plus Method (CPM) analysis, however, the Ld.TPO rejected the CPM analysis and used Transactional Net Margins Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method. 3.1 The Ld.AR at this juncture

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5022/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

company had submitted without prejudice that PE could be inferred in India but the attribution of profit of PE may be based on cost plus method of salary of expat employees. The ld. CIT further noted that the assessee company clearly mentioned that salary of 50% is attributable to operation

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5021/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

company had submitted without prejudice that PE could be inferred in India but the attribution of profit of PE may be based on cost plus method of salary of expat employees. The ld. CIT further noted that the assessee company clearly mentioned that salary of 50% is attributable to operation

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5020/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

company had submitted without prejudice that PE could be inferred in India but the attribution of profit of PE may be based on cost plus method of salary of expat employees. The ld. CIT further noted that the assessee company clearly mentioned that salary of 50% is attributable to operation

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4561/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

company had submitted without prejudice that PE could be inferred in India but the attribution of profit of PE may be based on cost plus method of salary of expat employees. The ld. CIT further noted that the assessee company clearly mentioned that salary of 50% is attributable to operation

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4560/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

company had submitted without prejudice that PE could be inferred in India but the attribution of profit of PE may be based on cost plus method of salary of expat employees. The ld. CIT further noted that the assessee company clearly mentioned that salary of 50% is attributable to operation

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4559/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

company had submitted without prejudice that PE could be inferred in India but the attribution of profit of PE may be based on cost plus method of salary of expat employees. The ld. CIT further noted that the assessee company clearly mentioned that salary of 50% is attributable to operation

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

Return of Income filed by the Appellant's German PE for the Calendar Years 2007 to 2011, the Appellant had followed Cost Plus Method for arriving at the taxable German PE profits. However, the German tax authorities completed the assessment by computing the taxable income based on actual profitability

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

Return of Income filed by the Appellant's German PE for the Calendar Years 2007 to 2011, the Appellant had followed Cost Plus Method for arriving at the taxable German PE profits. However, the German tax authorities completed the assessment by computing the taxable income based on actual profitability

Gbt India Private Limited, Delhi vs. National E-Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay application is accordingly held to be infructuous

ITA 462/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

under each method. The five methods recognized by the rule are (i) comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP), (ii) re-sale price method, {in) cost plus method, (iv) profit split method and (v) transactional net marginal method (TNMM). The manner by which the ALP in relation to an international transaction

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea vs. DCIT Int. Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 653/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

other household electronic appliances. Assessment in the case of the appellant for the captioned Assessment Years so completed was on the basis of cost plus method on the salary of expat employees, wherein 25% of salary is attributable to operation in India and cost of 20% of salary was applied ... company had submitted without prejudice that PE could be inferred in India but the attribution of profit of PE may be based on cost plus method of salary of expat employees. The ld. CIT further noted that the assessee company clearly mentioned that salary of 50% is attributable to operation

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea vs. DCIT Int. Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 652/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

other household electronic appliances. Assessment in the case of the appellant for the captioned Assessment Years so completed was on the basis of cost plus method on the salary of expat employees, wherein 25% of salary is attributable to operation in India and cost of 20% of salary was applied ... company had submitted without prejudice that PE could be inferred in India but the attribution of profit of PE may be based on cost plus method of salary of expat employees. The ld. CIT further noted that the assessee company clearly mentioned that salary of 50% is attributable to operation

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea vs. DCIT Int. Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 651/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

other household electronic appliances. Assessment in the case of the appellant for the captioned Assessment Years so completed was on the basis of cost plus method on the salary of expat employees, wherein 25% of salary is attributable to operation in India and cost of 20% of salary was applied ... company had submitted without prejudice that PE could be inferred in India but the attribution of profit of PE may be based on cost plus method of salary of expat employees. The ld. CIT further noted that the assessee company clearly mentioned that salary of 50% is attributable to operation