Ita/754/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Yamaha Motor India (P) Ltd

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI16.+ITA 737/2015COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AppellantThrough Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. versus 17. YAMAHA MOTOR INDIA (P) LTD. Respondent Through Mr Ved Jain and Mr Pranjal Srivastava,Advocates.AND +ITA 754/2015COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AppellantThrough Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. versus M/S YAMAHA MOTOR INDIA (P) LTD. RespondentThrough Mr Ved Jain and Mr Pranjal Srivastava,Advocates. CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUORDER%14.03.2016 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/2012 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2008-09. 2. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT wascorrect in accepting the Assessee's contention regarding the application of Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedBy:AMULYAITA No. 737 & 754 of 2015 the resale price method ('RPM') for determining the arm's length price('ALP') of the international transaction entered into by the Assessee with itsassociated enterprise ('AE'). 3. The contention is that in terms of Rule 10 B (l)(b)(i) of the Income TaxRules 1962, the RPM can be applied if property purchased or servicesobtained by the Assessee from AE is resold or are provided to an unrelatedenterprise. It is contended that, in much as the Assessee sought to apply theRPM 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 evenif the ALP is determined by applying the Transactional Net Margin Method('TNMM'), the gross profit margin earned by the Assessee in respect ofexport of motorcycles to its AE is 15.83% as compared to 10.75% in respectof export of motorcycles to unrelated parties. It was also seen that the exportprice realised per motor bike in the case of Assessee was much better whencompared 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 MARCH 14, 2016/pkv VIBHUBAKHRU, J