9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1524 - HC - Income TaxTransfer pricing adjustment - computation of income from international transactions having regard to the ALP - Held that - Appeal is admitted on question no. (ii). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Tribunal is not perverse in view of the fact that considering the mean margin figure of 5.34% as adopted by the Tribunal, the ALP determined by the TPO is ₹ 53,68,52,698/whereas in para 12 of its order, the Tribunal states that the ALP of AE sales as computed by the TPO after applying 5.34% comes to ₹ 50,20,74,010/and assessee s sales to AE is ₹ 49,81,00,499/and there is thus disparity in the figures arrived at though the PIL value of 5.34% for both the TPO and Tribunal remain the same and that there is no basis for its conclusions based on the computation figures so derived?
Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Income Tax Tribunal regarding Assessment Year 2007-08. Analysis: Issue 1: Adjustment of Arms Length Price (ALP) restricted to International Transactions During the assessment year, the Assessee had both domestic and international transactions, including those with Associated Enterprises. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument for adjusting ALP to the entire turnover of the Assessee, limiting it to International Transactions only. This decision was based on Section 92 of the Income Tax Act, which allows taxation of income from International Transactions considering their ALP. The Revenue contended that adjustments should apply to all transactions, not just International ones. However, the Court referenced previous cases like Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tara Jewels Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Keihin Panalfa Ltd., where similar views were upheld. Chapter X of the Act focuses on income from international transactions, ensuring ALP adjustments only for such transactions with Associated Enterprises or specified domestic transactions. The Court concluded that accepting the Revenue's argument would lead to taxing non-existing income/profits from transactions with independent third parties, not covered under Chapter X. Therefore, the proposed question did not raise any substantial legal issue and was not entertained. Issue 2: Discrepancy in ALP Determination The second question raised concerns a perceived disparity in the ALP determination by the Tribunal. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's mean margin figure of 5.34% led to conflicting ALP figures. While the Tribunal's order mentioned an ALP of Rs. 53,68,52,698, the actual computation showed Rs. 50,20,74,010 for AE sales and Rs. 49,81,00,499 for Assessee's sales to AE. The Revenue questioned the basis for these discrepancies. This issue was admitted for further consideration, directing the Registry to provide relevant documents to the Court for review. In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay analyzed the challenges raised by the Revenue regarding ALP adjustments and discrepancies in the Tribunal's order, providing detailed reasoning and references to relevant legal provisions and precedents to support its decision and directions for further review.
|
