9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Rs. 1,45,660/- towards interest on late deposit of TDS, were not pressed by the ld.AR. These grounds, therefore, stands dismissed as not pressed. 3. The only surviving ground no.3 is against the addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 83,49,926/-. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a company held by Bumi Highway Mauritius Ltd. with 99.96% shareholding and Bumi Highway (M) Sdn. Bhd. with the remaining 0.04% shareholding. The assessee reported two international transactions of Interest payable on ECB and Interest receivable on loan advanced. There is no dispute on the first transaction. The entire controversy is against the determination of arm's length price (ALP) of the second internat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble be computed at 18.5% per annum, being the rate payable by the assessee to its bank in the case of default. That is how the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 83,49,926/- was proposed. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) did not change the fortune of the assessee on this point, which eventually led to the making of the addition in the final assessment order for Rs. 83.49 lac. The assessee is aggrieved against this addition. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the assessee employed the CUP method for depicting that this international transaction was at arm's length price. The applicability of the CUP as the most appropriate method or the selection of comparable uncontroll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsaction or number of such transactions. The assessee has adopted internal comparable uncontrolled transaction, being the interest paid by it to Bank of Nova Scotia. Sub-clause (ii) refers to making certain adjustments in the price determined under sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (iii) treats such adjusted price as an arm's length price. A careful perusal of sub-clause (i) amply transpires that what is to be taken as a comparable uncontrolled transaction is 'the price charged or paid.' It is the actual transaction of charging or paying the price in a comparable uncontrolled transaction which is to be considered for the purposes of determining the ALP under the CUP method. There is no reference to any hypothetical or illusive price which ought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
