Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2011 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 99 - ITAT, AHMEDABADArms length price - Related parties - comparable transactions - controlled transactions - Held that: - burden to establish that international transaction was entered in to at ALP is on the assessee. The assessee is duty bound to furnish comparable transactions, apply appropriate method for determination of ALP and justify the same by producing relevant material and documents before the revenue authorities. In the instant case, the TPO specifically pointed out that assessee did not furnish the relevant FAR analysis prescribed in the aforesaid clauses (e), (f) & (m ) of the Rule 10D(1). Even no such material or FAR analysis finds mention in the impugned orders nor has been placed before us .It is only if the revenue authorities are not satisfied with the ALP or the supporting documents/information furnished by the assessee, this responsibility of determination of ALP is shifted to the revenue authorities, who are to determine the same in accordance with statutory regulations. For these two years, both the assessee as well as the TPO considered ‘CUP method’ as the most appropriate method for determining ALP of the aforesaid international transactions. The approach of the ld. CIT(A) in the AY 2002-03 and the TPO in the AY 2003-04 in comparing a controlled transaction with another controlled transaction is nowhere prescribed the Act or in Rule 10B(a) of the IT Rules,1962 and is against the spirit of CUP method. - Matter remanded back.
|