9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 296 - HC - Income TaxTPA - comparable selection - ALP - substantial question of law or fact - Held that - A substantial quantum of international trade and transactions depends upon the fair and quick judicial dispensation in such cases - the appeals of the present tenor as to whether the comparables have been rightly picked up or not, Filters for arriving at the correct list of comparables have been rightly applied or not, do not in our considered opinion, give rise to any substantial question of law. The present appeals filed by the Revenue do not give rise to any substantial question of law and the suggested substantial questions of law do not meet the requirements of Section 260-A of the Act and thus the appeals filed by the Revenue are found to be devoid of merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. See Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v- M/s Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd. (2018 (6) TMI 1327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) - no substantial question of law arises
Issues:
1. Applicability of Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in computing deductions. 2. Exclusion of comparables without Functional Analysis by the Tribunal. Issue 1: Applicability of Section 10A of the Income Tax Act: The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the deduction allowable to the assessee under Section 10A of the Act. The Appellants-Revenue contended that expenses incurred for 'Export Turn Over' should also be deducted from 'Total Turn Over' for computing the deduction under Section 10A. However, the counsel for the Appellants-Revenue conceded that this issue was no longer res integra, citing the decision of the Division Bench in the case of M/s. Tata Elxsi Ltd. The Division Bench held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to align with legislative intent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. affirmed this view, emphasizing that deductions should be allowed from total turnover in the same proportion to avoid illogical results. Consequently, the Appellants-Revenue withdrew the first substantial question of law, acknowledging the settled legal position. Issue 2: Exclusion of Comparables without Functional Analysis: The appeal also raised questions about the exclusion of certain comparables by the Tribunal without conducting Functional Analysis. The Appellants-Revenue initially pressed substantial questions of law regarding the exclusion of specific companies from the list of comparables chosen by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). However, during the proceedings, the counsel for the Appellants-Revenue informed the Court that they no longer pressed these questions. It was revealed that the name of a comparable case was inadvertently mentioned, and a memo was filed to consider the case of M/s RITES Limited instead. The Court referred to a previous decision where it was observed that unless the Tribunal's finding was ex facie perverse, appeals under Section 260-A of the Act were not maintainable. The Court emphasized that issues related to comparables selection did not give rise to substantial questions of law. Therefore, the Appellants-Revenue withdrew the substantial questions of law related to the exclusion of comparables without conducting Functional Analysis. In conclusion, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants-Revenue as it found no substantial questions of law arising from the issues presented. The Court reiterated that dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings alone was insufficient to invoke Section 260-A of the Act. The judgment emphasized the need for fair and quick judicial dispensation in international trade cases, highlighting the importance of adhering to established legal principles in tax matters.
|
