The Delhi Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the “resale price method” is the most appropriate method to benchmark an international transaction for the taxpayer’s trading activity involving purchases of goods from foreign related parties and then reselling the same goods without adding any value to them. The tribunal also found that comparables must be limited to comparable companies for which the gross profit margin can be computed without allocations/ truncations.
The case is: Swarovski India Private Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 5621/Del/2014 and ITA No. 5622/Del/2014)
The taxpayer, in its transfer pricing study, used the comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) method with respect to its international transactions involving the imported goods. The Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the CUP method, finding that the data related to different items, and instead applied the transactional net margin method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method.
During administrative proceedings, the taxpayer submitted an alternative analysis and applied the resale price method. This was rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].
The tribunal rejected the CUP method as the most appropriate method because complete data for analysis was not available. The tribunal then turned to measure the TNMM against use of the resale price method, and concluded that the resale price method was the most appropriate method when the goods purchased from related parties is resold with no value added to the imported goods before the resale.
Read a February 2017 report [PDF 326 KB] prepared by the KPMG member firm in India: Resale price method considered as most appropriate method for distributors engaged in buying and reselling of goods without any value addition to such goods
<p>© 2018 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. All rights reserved.</p> <p>Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm.</p>
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.