9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal by the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Income Tax Appeal No.5423/Mum/2009. The assessment year is 200304. The Tribunal's order dated 25th April, 2012 confirms the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)XIX, Mumbai, dated 24th July, 2009. 2] Mr. Pinto, learned counsel, submits that this Appeal raises following two questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated, thereby making RMP non applicable in the instant case?" 3] Mr. Pinto, submits that the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax had seriously erred in holding that the Resale Price Method (RPM) was the most appropriate method for determining the arms length price of the Assessee's international transaction in respect of import of finished goods. 4] Mr. Pinto, submits that the Transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Assessee is incurring losses consistently. Hence, the pricing policy is not at arms length. The gross margin in case of comparable cases cannot be relied upon because of the product differences of comparable companies. It is, then, found by the TPO that the Assessee had to incur several expenses including promotional and advertising, that is why the stand of the departmental representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Assessee in Income Tax Appeal No.2320 of 2011 decided on 22nd March, 2013. 7] After having perused the relevant part of the order passed by the Commissioner and the Tribunal on this question, we are in agreement with Mr. Pardiwalla that the Tribunal did not commit any error of law apparent on the face of the record nor can the findings can be said to be perverse. The Tribunal has found that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
