9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 474 - HC - Income TaxTPA - Comparable selection - substantial question of law - Held that - This Court in Prl.Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd. (2018 (6) TMI 1327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ) has held that in these type of findings of the learned Tribunal remained final fact findings of the learned Tribunal and are binding on the lower authorities of the Department as well as this Court and unless an established ex-facie perversity is found in the findings of the learned Tribunal, the appeal u/s.260A of the Act is not maintainable.
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of provisions of the Income Tax Act regarding deduction under section 10-A. 2. Inclusion/exclusion of comparables for Transfer Pricing adjustments. 3. Working capital adjustments directed by the Tribunal. 4. Applicability of Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act for appeals. Detailed Analysis: 1. The first substantial question of law pertained to the deduction under section 10-A of the Income Tax Act. The Appellants-Revenue raised concerns regarding the inclusion of telecom and traveling expenses in export turnover for computing the deduction. However, the learned counsel for the Appellants acknowledged the decision in the case of M/s. Tata Elxsi Ltd., emphasizing that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to align with legislative intent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. supported this interpretation, emphasizing the need for consistency in deductions from both turnovers. 2. The second issue involved the inclusion/exclusion of comparables for Transfer Pricing adjustments. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of companies like Accentia Technologies Ltd., Cosmic Global Ltd, and Eclerx Services from the list of comparables based on functional dissimilarities and previous decisions. The Tribunal's reasoning highlighted the importance of functional comparability in Transfer Pricing analysis, emphasizing the need to exclude companies not functionally similar to the assessed entity. 3. The third issue revolved around working capital adjustments directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Citrix Research and Development India Pvt. Ltd. was cited to support the direction given to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer to consider working capital adjustments after excluding certain companies from the list of comparables. This decision underscored the importance of accurate adjustments in Transfer Pricing assessments. 4. The final issue addressed the applicability of Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act for appeals. The judgment emphasized that appeals challenging Tribunal findings must demonstrate ex-facie perversity to be maintainable. The Court's decision in a related case highlighted the finality of Tribunal findings unless clear perversity is established. The judgment clarified that dissatisfaction with Tribunal findings alone does not warrant invoking Section 260-A, emphasizing the need for substantial legal questions to be raised for appeal. In conclusion, the judgment provided detailed analyses of various issues related to Income Tax Act provisions, Transfer Pricing adjustments, and the criteria for invoking Section 260-A for appeals, ultimately dismissing the appeal by the Appellants-Revenue for lacking substantial legal questions.
|
