Brief of the case:
In these cross appeals Hon’ble HC have framed following questions of law:
(a) Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that the Transfer Pricing Officer could apply the CUP METHOD (comparable uncontrolled price method) to analize three international transactions?
(b) Whether TPO could compute the arms length price ALP at nil on account of professional consultancy fee paid and management fee paid by the Appellant by using the Cup Method even though no comparable had been referred to by the TPO?
(c) Whether ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.1,61,36323/- (60% of Rs.2,68,93,871/-) made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the order of the TPO on account of consultancy charges, whereas the objection raised by the assessee on the addition has already been rejected by the DRP?
These questions of law would be relevant in determining the correctness of the orders of the TPO, the DRP and the Tribunal in respect of the determination of the arm’s length price by them and therefore, also in answering the questions of law raised in the appeals. The determination of the arm’s length price by the authorities is based on certain findings of law which is being dealt with in the judgment. The entire computation of the arm’s length price, therefore would have to be reconsidered and reassessed based on court’s findings. Therefore, HC have remanded back the matter to the tribunal for afresh consideration.
Facts of the case:
