9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal declined to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-determining the ALP by adopting one of the methods as listed out in Section 92C of the Act. This finding of the Tribunal has also not been challenged by the Revenue. In view of the fact that the Revenue has accepted the order of the Tribunal on its finding on facts on the two issues as pointed out hereinabove as well as the refusal of the Tribunal to restore the issue of determination of ALP to the TPO by following one of the methods prescribed under Section 92C of the Act. Thus, the questions as formulated for our consideration even if answered in favour of the Revenue would become academic in the present facts. Thus, we see no reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 92B(1); but was a transaction within the precincts of Section 92B(2), being a transaction between unrelated parties, where there exists a prior agreement between the Associate Enterprises and such unrelated party in relation to a relevant transaction OR the terms of the relevant transaction are determined in substance between such other person and the Associated Enterprise, thus qualifying to be a deemed International Transaction ? 3. The respondent assessee is an Indian subsidiary of M/s. Eastman Kodak Co. USA (EKC). During the previous year relevant to the assessment year the respondent assessee sold its imaging business to one M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. The buyer company i.e. M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On appeal, the Tribunal on interpretation of Section 92B(2) of the Act, as in force during the subject assessment year concluded that the transaction would not be covered by the definition of International Transaction. This inter alia on the ground that the prior to amendment to Section 92B(2) of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 2015 such a transaction was not deemed to be an International Transaction. Further, the impugned order also examined the issue on facts and held that even if the Revenue's interpretation is accepted, no addition on account of Arms Length Price (ALP) is warranted. Moreover, it also held that the ALP was sought to be determined by a method not prescribed under Section 92C of the Act and the prayer for restoration to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that the ALP was arrived at by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) by not adopting any of the methods prescribed under Section 92C of the Act. The method to determine the ALP adopted was not one of the prescribed methods for computing the ALP. It was not even any method prescribed by the Board. At the relevant time, i.e. for A.Y. 200809 Section 92C of the Act did not provide for other method as provided in Section 92C(1)(f) of the Act. The impugned order of the Tribunal holds that the method adopted by the Revenue to determine the ALP was alien to the methods prescribed under Section 92C of the Act. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal declined to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-determining the ALP by adopting o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
