|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1957 Records
-
2018 (11) TMI 1941 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Recovery of remission of duty - semi finished goods lost in fire - Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The said issue has already been settled by this Tribunal in appellant’s own case while entertaining the claim of remission of duty by this Tribunal in PARK NONWOVENS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, DELHI-III [2017 (3) TMI 1923 - CESTAT DELHI] wherein it has been held that the appellant is not required to reverse the cenvat credit contained in work in progress finished goods and semi finished goods. Taking note that the said order which has been accepted by the Revenue, the ld. Commissioner (A) was not required to pass the impugned order for recovery of cenvat credit on inputs contained in work in progress of semi finished goods which shows that the ld. Commissioner (A) have no regard to the order passed by this Tribunal, it is found that recently the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of XL HEALTH CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SERVICE TAX, DIVISION-III SERVICE TAX-I, COMMISSIONERATE [2018 (10) TMI 1565 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] observed that the ld. Commissioner (A) has not given any regard to the Tribunal’s orders imposed a fine of Rs. 1 Lac on the Ld. Commissioner (A). In that circumstances, the Commissioner (A) has not respected the order of this Tribunal required to be penalized.
Therefore, the ld. Commissioner (A) is directed to take care in future to avoid any penal action from this Tribunal.
The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1940 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Bogus purchases - Consequent bogus sales - as per ITAT as confirming CIT(A) order addition is without any basis - Also as purchases made are not bogus purchases, the sales made out of such purchases cannot be treated as bogus sales - Disallowance of interest paid to Hawala operators be deleted as when the loan was received had not disallowed same as not genuine, having not disallowed the principal as not genuine, there is no justification for making any disallowance of interest paid to the above parties.
HELD THAT:- Since the concurrent findings of fact given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be re-opened and re-looked into as those are concluded findings and nothing in terms of error in relation to the view so taken by the two forums emerge, we are of the opinion that no significant question of law as such is made out to interfere with the impugned decision or decisions.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1939 - ITAT KOLKATA
Bogus LTCG on purchase and sale of the shares - addition of the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income and rejected the claim of exemption made u/s 10(38) - CIT relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO - HELD THAT:- No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed by the assessee, in support of the genuineness of the transactions.
The overwhelming evidence filed by the assessee remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. The entire conclusions drawn by the revenue authorities, are based on a common report of the Director of Investigation, Kolkata, which was general in nature and not specific to any assessee. The assessee was not confronted with any statement or material alleged to be the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing of the department and which were the basis on which conclusion were drawn against the assessee. Copy of the report was also not given.
Under the circumstances, in a number of cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. The addition made u/s 68 of the Act, is deleted. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1938 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Failure to pay the employees' contribution under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 before the due date provided under the said enactments - HELD THAT:- The issue raised in the above I.T. Appeal is covered against the assessee in Popular Vehicles and Services Pvt. Ltd [2018 (8) TMI 133 - KERALA HIGH COURT]
Hence following the aforesaid decision, the questions of law are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1937 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Delayed employees contribution paid after the due date as per the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity, 'EPF & MP Act') - allowable deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the EPF & MP Act? - HELD THAT:- The issue stands covered in favour of the Revenue as held by us in Popular Vehicles and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2018 (8) TMI 133 - KERALA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of revenue.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1936 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Dishonour of Cheque - insufficient funds - Misuse of cheque - rebuttal of presumption u/s 118 and 139 of NI Act, 1881 - HELD THAT:- It is not a case of the respondent that cheque was not issued in favour of the appellant. As per case of the respondent earlier he borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from the appellant in the year 2003 which was returned by him and he had drawn four cheques for that loan amount and one cheque is misused by the complainant/appellant for filing this complaint.
As per Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this Chapter, on production of bank’s slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured, presume the fact of dishonour of such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved. As the bank's slip is not disproved by the respondent, it is clearly established that cheque is dishonoured for insufficient fund. The cheque was issued by the Bank of Baroda in the present case and it was submitted before the same Bank. The purpose of enactment of the Act, 1881 is to maintain confidence of Bank transactions.
It is clearly established that the cheque was issued to clear the liability of the year 2005 and therefore, argument advanced on behalf of the respondent regarding no transaction took place between the parties after 2003 is not sustainable. Again, cheque is presented before same Bank which issued the cheque and it is not a case where any manipulation is done in the said cheque. When even after notice the respondent did not pay the amount, the appellant had no option but to file criminal complaint case against the respondent as envisaged under Section 138 of the Act, 1881. Finding arrived at by the trial Court is not sustainable.
The respondent is convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and awarded sentence of fine to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- - the appeal is allowed reversing the acquittal.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1935 - ITAT KOLKATA
Penalty u/s 271AA - CIT(Appeals) cancelled the penalty imposed u/s 271AA on the ground that the amendment made in section 271AA by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1st July, 2012 was applicable from A.Y. 2012-13 and not to A.Y. 2011-12 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer in the present case shows that the penalty u/s 271AA was imposed by the AO in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 for the failure of the assessee to report the international transactions and also to furnish incorrect information in the return of income with reference to such international transactions. The said defaults allegedly committed by the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y. 2011-12, however, were not covered by the provisions of section 271AA as applicable to the said year and the same were covered only by the provisions of section 271AA as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012.
Since the said provisions as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 were not retrospective in nature and were applicable from A.Y. 2012-13, we find ourselves in agreement with the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the penalty imposed by the AO by relying on the amended provisions of section 271AA was not sustainable. We accordingly uphold the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) cancelling the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271AA and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1934 - ITAT BANGALORE
Disallowance of Expenses by holding them to be Pre-operative Expenses - Non commencement of business - what is the stage at which a real estate company can be considered to have commenced its business and becomes eligible to claim the expenses incurred as revenue expenses? - AO has held that since the expenses claimed do not have corresponding business revenue, the assessee’s business activities have not commenced and therefore, the interest income needs to be charged to tax as pre-operative interest
HELD THAT:- Whether an assessee is in a position to commence its business operations OR not is the true test for deciding whether the business has been set up and would obviously depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
We find that the assessee had raised funds from its AE by issuing CCDs and made advance payments to a party for purchase of land. Part of the advance payment was made in the earlier year and balance amount in the current year. No land has been purchased by the said party as can be seen from the suit filed by the assessee against the party in 2011. Other than payments of advance, it is not known as to whether any other activity happened to establish that the assessee was “in a position to commence business”. In the year under consideration, the assessee has raised funds from its AEs in the form of issue of another series of CCDs and paid advance to Shriram Land Development India (P) Ltd., which has been shown as a related party in the assessee’s TP study. Even in this transaction, other than making the advance payment, nothing has been brought on record to establish that the assessee was in a position to commence business.
We also notice that out of the expenses claimed as deduction, the major components are Legal and Professional Charges and loss on redemption of investment in mutual funds (‘MF’). Whether these expenses are revenue OR capital in nature has not been examined at all. We also find that the TPO has treated the ALP of the interest transactions as NIL and disallowed the interest paid on CCDs. The AO has once again disallowed the same, leading to a double disallowance.
We deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh, after proper examination of the facts and test the facts of this case in the light of the legal principles outlined above - Ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
TP adjustment - assessee had raised funds from its AE, an entity registered in Cypress, by issuing Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) to its AE - There were two series of CCDs; one was issued at 0% interest and the other was at 14% - TPO rejected the assessee’s contentions that the CCDs are debt instruments and held them to be equity in nature - HELD THAT:- TPO while taking the view that CCDs are not in the nature of debts has referred to RBI policy and also the facts of the case on hand where the CCDs issued as a first series carried interest @ 14% and interest was then reduced to 0% and the second series of CCDs issued by the assessee on similar conditions carried interest @ 14%.
CIT(A) has also not examined as to whether these two series of CCDs constituted an internal CUP for comparability analysis and determination of ALP.
As regards the interest rate to be charged, the CIT(A) has observed that while the Bangalore Bench of ITAT has held that interest rate should be determined as per short term deposits in the home country; the Chennai and Hyderabad Benches of ITAT have held that the average LIBOR rates are to be adopted and is following the ‘Majority View’. This approach by the CIT(A) in deciding the issue, without examining the facts of the decisions relied upon and comparing the same to the facts of the case on hand, is erroneous to say the least. The CIT(A) ought to have first examined the currency in which the borrowings have been denominated, by examining the agreement entered into by the assessee and the AE and then decided the issue.
There is merit in the assessee’s contention that it should have been afforded opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) decided that the interest rate should be designated in LIBOR and not on the Rupee rate, as was done by the assessee.
As it is clear that the basic facts of the case on this issue have not been thoroughly/properly examined in the right perspective by the CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to remand the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication - Grounds 2 to 4 of assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1933 - ITAT BANGALORE
Validity of rectification proceedings u/s 154 - assessment of income declared in survey u/s 133A - AO made addition on account of declaration of excess stock in the course of survey - AR submitted that the AO has carried out the exercise of rectification on the premise that the entire amount admitted in the course of survey ought to have been offered to tax without making all sorts of claims of expenditure thereon; whereas the only expenditure that increased was restricted to the partners’ salary - HELD THAT:- The contention of Revenue that the claim of expenditure by way of partners’ salary on application of the provisions of Section 40(b) of the Act is not an allowable claim, merely because additional income admitted is reduced, is devoid merit as the assessee firm is entitled to compute salary in accordance with the provisions of section 40(b) of the Act. It is settled position of law that the scope of rectification u/s 154 is restricted to mistakes apparent from the record, like mathematical or typographical errors, and not something that has to be established by way of a long drawn out process of reasoning on which there are two opinions as in the case on hand, where both the AOs involved hold different views.
As considering the principles laid down in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers [1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] we are of the considered opinion that the rectification carried out by the AO in the case on hand does not fall within the scope on ambit of mistake apparent from the record.
We, therefore, hold that the exercise undertaken by the AO is not in accordance with law, since the issue in question being a debatable one, with conflicting opinions of two AO’s, the second AO could not to have resorted to proceedings u/s 154 of the Act and consequently set aside the impugned orders of the authorities below. The original order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2014 for Assessment Year 2012-13 determining the assessee’s income is accordingly restored.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1932 - COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Misuse of dominant position - Contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of Competition Act, 2002 - Abuse of dominant position - selling goods below cost price also result in denial of market access to the individual sellers who are not backed by VC funds and investors and thereby such acts also contravene the provisions of Section 4 (2) (c) of the Act - using its dominance in the relevant market by leveraging its position to enter into another market by way of extending discounts and manufacturing products under private labels.
HELD THAT:- The relevant product market in this case may be considered as “Services provided by online marketplace platforms” - Further, as per the provisions of the Act, relevant geographic market comprises the area in which conditions of competition are distinctly homogeneous. For online market platforms, the conditions of competition are homogeneous pan India and as such, the relevant geographic market in this case may be taken as ‘India’ - the relevant market in the instant case may be defined as “Services provided by online marketplace platforms for selling goods in India”.
Issue of dominance - HELD THAT:- Flipkart India is not dominant in the relevant market of “Services provided by online marketplace platforms for selling goods in India”; therefore, the issue of abuse of dominant position does not arise. The Commission, however, deems it appropriate to take on record the submissions made by Flipkart denying abusive conduct by its entities. In regards to Flipkart India, it has been submitted by Flipkart that the arrangements of Flipkart India with its B2B customers are neither exclusive nor do they impose any restraints on any reseller who chooses to sell their products on the Flipkart platform. Further, Flipkart India does not impose any exclusivity requirements on its B2B customers with respect to either procuring the products from Flipkart India or with respect to reselling these products to any third parties, or selling on/ through the Flipkart marketplace. The option of dealing with Flipkart India is available to any vendor. There is no restriction on any entity desirous of dealing with Flipkart India as a B2B customer. Further, the B2B customers are independent third party vendors with whom Flipkart India has arm’s length arrangement.
The Commission is of the opinion that no case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act is made out against the Opposite Parties and the Information is ordered to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(2) of the Act.
Application disposed off.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1931 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Late filing levy u/s 234E - intimations u/s 200A - As per assessee prior to 01/06/2015 such inclusion of late fee u/s 234E in the intimation u/s 200A is not permissible under the law - HELD THAT:- We find that similar issue came up for consideration in the case of M/s Terra Infra Development Ltd. [2018 (10) TMI 285 - ITAT HYDERABAD] as held levy of fees u/s 234E while processing returns, TDS u/s 200A prior to 01.06.2015 was without any authority of law.
Thus in the present case we find that the TDS returns filed by the assessee for the relevant period i.e., FYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 were prior to 01/06/2015. Therefore, we set aside the orders of CIT(A) and direct the ACIT CPC TDS to delete the fees levied u/s 234E. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1930 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of interim bail - bail sought on medical grounds - HELD THAT:- Taking into account that the applicant is an old lady and is suffering from various old age disease, we grant her interim bail at this stage with a direction that she shall remain present before this Court on the next date fixed.
Let the applicant, namely, Kusum Lata involved in Complaint Case under sections 3 read with 4 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003 registered with Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow be released on interim bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5 lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court, Lucknow - application allowed.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1929 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Computation of Deduction u/s 10A - Software development charges to be excluded while working out the deduction admissible u/s 10A - HELD THAT:- As first substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-III VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.[2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT]
Interest on fixed profit – Benefit of Section 10A and 10B Profits and gains derived from export of articles is different from the income derived from the profits of the business of the undertaking - Second and third substantial questions of law is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE VS. MOTOROLA INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD., [2014 (1) TMI 1235 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. Hence, he pleads that the present appeal be dismissed.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1928 - ITAT MUMBAI
Revision u/s 263 - AO failed to enquire into the details long term capital gains arising on sale of equity shares - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, the AO raised the specific query which was replied specifically alongwith relevant documents by the assessee. AO being satisfied with the query so raised and the documents so filed in support of various contentions did not make any adverse observation in the assessment order. Merely non discussion of the issue in the order nowhere make the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
In response to the enquiry during asst. proceedings, the assessee submitted the details of working of long term capital gains alongwith relevant supporting documents and explained that the sale of equity shares was through recognized stock exchange and STT was also paid on the said sale. The AO thereafter raised a query with regards to difference in sale consideration, as reported in ITS statement and as per the brokers ledger account submitted by the assessee.
Once it is found that the AO had made proper inquiry of issue under consideration. Moreover, on appraisal of the notice, we noticed that the commissioner has taken cognizance on account of this fact that the Sunrise Asian Ltd. has been marked in the list of penny stock company but nowhere has proved or discussed that the transaction with the penny stock company is against law and facts.
There is nothing on record in which circumstances, the order passed by AO can be branded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It is mandatory on the part of the commissioner to arrive at this conclusion that the order as passed by AO is erroneous, which he did not hold.
Asit is apparent on record that the AO has asked the query which was properly replied by assessee along with necessary documents, therefore, after his satisfaction, the AO nowhere made an adverse remark in the order but a legally tenable view has been taken so the commissioner has no power to invoke the provision u/s 263 of the Act in view of the law settled in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT], MAX INDIA LTD. [2007 (11) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] and GABRIEL INDIA LIMITED [1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1927 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Levy of penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act - GTA Service - reverse charge mechanism - Service tax deposited before issuance of SCN - HELD THAT:- The Ld. DR does not dispute the fact which is on record, that service tax amount has been duly deposited, either by the transport agencies or by the assessee for the remaining portion, well before the issue of Show Cause Notice though belatedly for which interest has also been paid. It is also not the case of the Revenue that they are seeking double payment of tax which stood deposited by the transport agencies as reimbursed and borne by the assessee manufacturers receiving transport service which fact has also been appreciated by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned Original Order.
When service tax amount has been deposited before the Show Cause Notice, no penalty should be imposed in view of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-II VERSUS PUSHPADEEP ENTERPRISES [2012 (10) TMI 496 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] relied upon by the assessee, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
There are also force in the argument of the assessee that in terms of the provisions of Section 80 of the Act, they are entitled to full waiver of penalty under Section 78 as well as Section 76 and 77 of the Act, inasmuch there was a reasonable case for non payment of tax as the very levy of service tax on GTA service under reverse charge was a new concept.
Thus, there are no reason to burden the assessee with penalty under Section 78 of the Act and the same is therefore set aside - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1926 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking revalidation of unused three DFIA licences - HELD THAT:- Whether the petitioner is entitled for revalidating of such unused three DFIA licences or not is for the first respondent to consider and decide. Therefore, this Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner. However, as the petitioner has made a representation dated 21.11.2017 for effecting such revalidation, it is for the first respondent to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law without loss of further time.
This writ petition is disposed of only with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.2017 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1925 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - change of opinion - assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) - HELD THAT:- We find that the reopening of the assessment is within a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the initial assessment was u/s 143(1) and not u/s 143(3) of the Act. As regards the change of opinion is concerned, we find that the A.O. has perused the assessment record to observe that the built up area of each of the residential units is more than 1500 sq. ft and that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10).
Therefore, it is clear that the formation of belief is from the material on record only and that no fresh tangible material had come to the knowledge of the A.O. to reopen the assessment. In the case of Orient Craft Ltd [2013 (1) TMI 177 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has clearly held that even an assessment done u/s 143(1) of the Act, can be reopened u/s 147 only if the AO had tangible material which has come to his knowledge, subsequent to such an assessment u/s 143(1).
We hold that the reopening of the assessment which is completed u/s 143(1) of the Act is not sustainable without there being any tangible material that has come to the knowledge of the A.O. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1924 - ITAT KOLKATA
Bogus LTCG - purchase and sale of the shares - AO based on a general report and modus operandi adopted and concluded that the assessee has claimed bogus long term capital gain - HELD THAT:- As in a number of cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions.
As there is no surviving order of SEBI against the assessee or the company, the script of which was purchased and sold by the assessee. When there is no surviving adverse order of SEBI, disputing the claim of the assessee, the judgment in RAKHI TRADING PRIVATE LTD. [2018 (2) TMI 580 - SUPREME COURT] cannot be applied to the facts of this case. In view of the above discussion the addition in question is deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1923 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - Rejection of proposal of the Resolution Professional for extension of the CIRP period by 73.3% vote share - preferential transaction - HELD THAT:- COC by a majority vote share has decided not to proceed further with the CIRP process for want of any prospective resolution applicant to the satisfaction of the COC, and decided to go for liquidation. The Resolution Professional in the case in hand, duly conducted the process with utmost care and caution and he observed that the Corporate Debtor Company has got a good factory. However, as the COC did not opt for proceeding further, he was forced to file the Final Progress Report recommending passing an order of liquidation.
The Ld. Resolution Professional also submits that an application was filed u/s. 43 and 45 of the I & B Code alleging preferential transaction to the tune of Rs. 41 Crores as a corporate lone taken from Mr. Madhu Dalmia and refunded before the maturity period. According to him, the above said amount is to be refunded as it is a preferential transaction and to be deposited in the account of the Corporate Debtor.
Liquidation order is passed - Mr. Kannan Tiruvengadam is appointed as Liquidator - Mr. Kannan Tiruvengadam is directed to issue Public Announcement stating that the Corporate Debtor is in liquidation, in tens of Regulation 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 - application allowed.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1922 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Computation of Deduction u/s 10A - Software development charges to be excluded while working out the deduction admissible u/s 10A - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the first substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-III VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD., [2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT]
TPA - comparable selection - ALP - substantial question of law or fact - Second and third substantial questions of law is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU VS. SOFTBRANDS INDIA (P) LTD. [2018 (6) TMI 1327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]Hence, he pleads that the present appeal be dismissed.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is placed on record.
........
|
