Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that where segmental accounts are not available, then proportionate adjustments have to be made only in respect of the international transactions with associated enterprises [AE]. Thus, TPO directed to compute the transfer pricing [TP] adjustment, restricting it to the international transactions undertaken with associated enterprises.
Facts- The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai [“learned DRP”], under section 144C(5) of the Act, for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15.
Conclusion- Held that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-11, cited supra, after considering the Sales Representative Agreement entered into between Hand Innovations Inc. and Harry Kraus, as well as the Sales Representative Agreement entered into by RG Medical Diagnostics, found that these companies are having similar product profile as the companies which were excluded by the TPO. Accordingly, agreeing with the submissions of the assessee, the Co-ordinate Bench directed the TPO to exclude Hand Innovations Inc. and RG Medical Diagnostics for benchmarking the international transaction of receipt of indenting commission.
