| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0592 (Ahd-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 92C
TPO had computed arm's length price of sale of machinery on the basis of written down value of asset and had not taken into consideration any other comparable to determine uncontrolled price of the sold machine. Accordingly, AO was not justified in taking written down value as ALP under CUP method.
|
Transfer pricing - Determination of ALP - Machinery sold to AE - TPO considered WDV in assessee's books as ALP
Assessee sold old plant and machinery to its AE abroad for Rs. 7,30,40,500 whereas its written down value as per books of account was at Rs. 8,53,68,065. AO on the basis of TPO's report, took written down value as arm's length price and made upward adjustment of Rs. 1,23,27,565.Held: TPO had computed arm's length price of sale of machinery on the basis of written down value of asset and had not taken into consideration any other comparable to determine uncontrolled price of the sold machine. Accordingly, AO was not justified in taking written down value as ALP under CUP method.
Relied:Asstt. CIT v. Sarens Heavy Lift (I) (P) Ltd. vide ITA No. 1027/Del/2015, dt. 2-4-2018 TaxPub(DT), Asstt. CIT v. Koch Chemical Technology Group (India) Ltd. (2015) 64 taxman.com 464 (Mum-Trib) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5517 (Mum-Trib) and Asstt. CIT v. Interpump Hydraulics India (P.) Ltd. vide ITA No. 839/Mds/2015, dt. 19- 5-2015 : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3882 (Chen-Trib).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2012-13
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 143(3)
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|