9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1687 - HC - Income TaxTPA - include forex gain/loss as part of operating profit to determine the PLI profit level indicator for comparison under TNMM transactional net margin method method with ascertaining the nexus between such gain and the business activity of the tax payer? - Held that - The controversy involved herein is no more res integra in view of the decision in PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD. 2018 (6) TMI 1327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT wherein it has been observed that unless the finding of the Tribunal is found ex facie perverse, the Appeal u/s. 260-A of the Act, is not maintainable
Issues involved:
1. Appeal filed by Revenue challenging Order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Substantial questions of law regarding inclusion of forex gain/loss in operating profit under TNMM method. 3. Tribunal's findings on the nexus between forex gain/loss and business activity of taxpayer. 4. Applicability of previous court decision on maintainability of appeals under Section 260-A of the Act. 5. Determination of substantial questions of law in the present case. 6. Dismissal of the Appeal by the Revenue. Analysis: 1. The Appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'C', related to the Assessment Year 2010-11. The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were regarding the inclusion of forex gain/loss in the operating profit to determine the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and the nexus between such gain and the business activity of the taxpayer. 2. The Tribunal's findings emphasized that the foreign exchange fluctuation and resulting gain to the assessee were in connection with the sale proceeds that the assessee had to realize. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's contention about the nexus of the foreign exchange gain with the business activity of the taxpayer not being ascertained by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) was unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue. 3. The judgment referred to a previous court decision to establish the principle that unless the finding of the Tribunal is ex facie perverse, an appeal under Section 260-A of the Act is not maintainable. The court highlighted that questions related to comparables and the application of filters for arriving at the correct list of comparables do not give rise to substantial questions of law. 4. The court clarified that the mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of facts is not a sufficient reason to invoke Section 260-A of the Act. The court emphasized that the same parameters should be applied to appeals filed by both Revenue and Assessees. In the present case, after considering the arguments from both sides, the court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. In conclusion, the court dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2010-11, stating that no substantial question of law was found to be arising in the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining consistent standards for appeals filed by both Revenue and Assessees, emphasizing the need for substantial legal issues to be raised for consideration under Section 260-A of the Act.
|
