Full Text
16.
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX Appellant
Through Mr Rahul Chaudhary,Advocate.
Through Mr Ved Jain and MrPranjal Srivastava, Advocates.
17.
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX Appellant
Through Mr Rahul Chaudhary,Advocate.
Through Mr Ved Jain and MrPranjal Srivastava, Advocates.
14.03.2016
ORDER
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against an order dated 29^^ October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(TTAT')in ITA NO. 6434/Del/2012for the Assessment Year('AY')2008-09.
2. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was correct in accepting the Assessee's contention regarding the application of ITA No. 737& 754of2015 PageI of[2] 2016:DHC:8454-DB u the resale price method ('RPM') for determining the arm's length price ('ALP')ofthe international transaction entered into by the Assessee with its associated enterprise('AE').
3. The contention is that in terms ofRule 10 B (l)(b)(i) ofthe Income Tax Rules 1962, the RPM can be applied if property purchased or services obtained by the Assessee from AE is resold or are provided to an unrelated enterprise. It is contended that, in much as the Assessee sought to apply the RPM to determine the ALP the ITAT erred in accepting the said plea.
4. The Court finds that the ITAT has, in the impugned order, held that even ifthe ALP is determined by applying the Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM'), the gross profit margin earned by the Assessee in respect of export ofmotorcycles to its AE is 15.83% as compared to 10.75% in respect ofexport ofmotorcycles to unrelated parties. It was also seen thatthe export price realised per motor bike in the case ofAssessee was much better when compared to that realised by other companies in the same line of business. These findings of fact have not been specifically assailed by the Revenue. Consequently,the Court declines to frame a question on this issue.
5. The appeal is dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR,J VIBHUBAKHRU,J MARCH 14,2016/pkv ITA No. 737& 754of2015 Page2of[2]