Case Law Details
Transfer Pricing Officer has selected RPM as most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price of the transaction of sale of programmes and film rights to ATL in contrast to the TNM method selected by the assessee. The first controversy is as to whether the Transfer Pricing Officer was justified in selecting the RPM as most appropriate method. Section 92(1) of the Act provides that the arm’s length price in relation to the international transaction shall be determined by any of the methods prescribed therein, being the most appropriate method. Notably, the phraseology of section 92C(1) of the Act makes it clear that the selection of the most appropriate method is to be made “having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors ”. Further, Rule 10B of the Rules enumerates the various methods to determine the arm’s length price of an international transaction and for the present purpose, what is relevant is clause(b) of Rule 10B(1) of the Rules, which prescribes the manner in which the RPM is to be effectuated.
Full Text of the ITAT Order is as follows:-
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2008-09 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)-15, Mumbai dated 27/02/2014, which in turn, arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 15/02/2012.
2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:-
“1. Addition on account of Arm’s Length Price by TPO Rs. 24,91,59,200/-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
