The language of this proviso to section 92C(2) makes it clear that selecting a price within the range of +-5% of such arithmetic mean if more than one price is determined by the most appropriate method. Therefore, the ALP shall be taken to be in the range of ± 5% of arithmetic mean of more than one price. Since in this case, one comparable is considered as ALP; therefore, the benefit under the said proviso would not be available.
The issue involved in the present case is relating to the determination of arm’s length price in relation to the international transactions involving payment of royalty by the assessee company to its associated enterprises. As provided in section 92C of the Act, such arms’s length price is to be determined by one of the methods prescribed, which is found to be the most appropriate method 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 as may be prescribed. The manner in which such most appropriate method is to be applied for determination of arm’s length price is prescribed in Rule 10B of Income-tax Rules, 1962.
Moreover, in the subsequent year i.e 2008-09 & 2009-10 the cup method as adopted by the assessee for benchmarking its international transactions has not been disputed by the revenue. Further, when the relevant data are now available, as stated by the ld Sr counsel, then it is appropriate to determine the ALP by adopting the same method as it was accepted in the subsequent year.
The fact of approval of the payment by the RBI has been succinctly recorded by the TPO in his order as well. He still chose to propose adjustment in respect of full payment. In our considered opinion, when the rate of royalty payment and fee for drawings etc. has been approved or deemed to have been approved by the RBI, then such payment has to be considered at ALP.
Clause 4 of the agreement indicates that the Smt Shah surrendered the tenancy rights along with the property to the assessee. If that is true, where is the need for Smt Shah to be the signatory to the agreement in giving the property on monthly rent to the new tenants and why should there be a tripartite agreement? Letting off the impugned property becomes the matter for settlement between the landlord and the new tenant as per the terms and conditions of the land lord, which is not the case here.
Since the entire services were rendered outside India having nothing to do with the permanent establishment, there can be no taxability of this amount in India. Further in para (12) it has been held that the offshore services are inextricably linked to the supply of goods, so it must be considered in the same manner.
the commission or brokerage definition does not include transactions in securities. There is no doubt that Mutual Funds are categorised as securities on which there is no objection from the Revenue either before the A.O. or before the CIT(A). In fact the CIT(A) also gives a finding that the A.O. has not disputed that units of Mutual Funds are securities as per Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Assessee is in the business of Mutual Funds distribution and investment agent.
The words used in Article 12(1) was ‘paid to a resident of other contracting state’. The term royalties also means “payment of any kind received”. Since the word used in the DTAA is ‘paid’ or ‘received’, assessee’s contention that amounts cannot be taxed on accrual basis is correct. This interpretation is also supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (IT) v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft ITA no 124 of 2010 dt.22.10.12 wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on a question as follows:
In our opinion, the assessee himself having taken these two non-related parties as comparables in its TP study, it cannot now turn back and say that one of the parties is not comparable without giving any cogent or convincing reason. The only reason given by the assessee in this regard is that the use of technology availed from Dupont has restricted application. It is, however, observed from the relevant figures that the domestic sales generated by the assessee using the technology of Dupont is quite comparable with the domestic sales generated from the use of technology of its AE Kansai Japan. There is thus no merit in the stand of the assessee that Depont is not a comparable case with Kansai Japan.
The other point considered by the authorities below marring the benefit u/s 72A(1) is that the assessee company failed to lead evidence that the amalgamation was to ensure the revival of the business of the amalgamating company. Objections of the AO in points nos. (iii) and (iv) of para 3 of this order about the violation of the conditions prescribed in Rule 9C are also related to this very aspect of the matter. The case of the AO is that the assessee failed to substantiate the steps taken by it to revive business of BTPU and further it did not satisfy the twin conditions as per rule 9C, being, achieving the stipulated level of production of at least fifty percent of the installed capacity of BTPU and furnishing certificate in Form no. 62.
