9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges only the following three questions of law for our consideration: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the transactions of import of pigments and fees for technical knowhow were at arm's length?. (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that write back of loss, arising on revaluation, credited in the P & L A/c is eligible for deduction u/s. 80HHC? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing double deduction under Section 80IB and 80HHC of the Income Tax Act with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th August, 2002 submitted by the Assessee. This email, according to the Revenue evidences the fact that the Assessee was deliberately following a predatory pricing policy in India with a view to finish local competition. This according to the Revenue will establish that the import of pigments is at a price lessor then ALP. Therefore, the question ought to be admitted for consideration. (c) We are unable to understand the grievance of the Revenue. Chapter X of the Act provides for computation of income arising from an International Transaction on the basis of the ALP in respect of transactions between AEs. Section 92(3) of the Act, which is part of Chapter X of the Act provides that the Transfer Pricing provisions will not apply where it re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Rs. 1.57 Crores is attributable to the three technical services which the Respondent-Assessee availed of and held that no consideration was payable in respect of nine services provided for in the agreement. Thus the entire payment of Rs. 1.57 Crores was attributable only to the three services availed out of the twelve listed out in the Agreement. It further held that only Rs. 40 lakhs could be considered as ALP attributable to three services and made adjustment of Rs. 1.17 Crores resulting in its addition to the taxable income. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld addition of Rs. 1.17 Crores made and taxable income consequent to the adjustment made on the account of technical knowhow/ consultancy agreement. (b) On further appeal, the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re us is that services only in three areas had been availed of by the Respondent-Assessee from its AE out of the twelve areas listed in the Agreement. Therefore, the consideration paidto the AE is only attributable to the services received/availed. (d) The finding of the Tribunal that the TPO has not applied any of the method prescribed under Section 92C of the Act to determine the ALP in respect of fees for technical knowhow/consultancy fee paid by the Respondent-Assessee to its AE is not disputed before us. Further, the finding of the Tribunal that even in respect of three fields where Respondent-Assessee had availed the services, no exercise to bench mark the same with similar transactions entered into between independent parties was ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d an the earlier previous year, revalued its assets which resulted in a loss. However, in the previous year relevant to the subject Assessment Year, the amount debited on account of revaluation to the Profit & Loss Account in the earlier year, was reversed. Consequently, on reversal, the amount was credited to the Profit & Loss Account of the Respondent-Assessee in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year. The Assessing Officer assessed the amount credited on account of revaluation of assets as a part of the business income of the Respondent-Assessee. Further, while computing the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, the Assessing Officer treated the amount credited to the Profit & Loss Account on account of revaluation as fall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. (c) No specific grievance in respect of the above finding of the Tribunal is urged on behalf of the Revenue. We find that the finding recorded by the impugned order of the Tribunal are selfevident on a plain reading of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC of the Act. (d) In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5. Re: Question (c): (a) We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has allowed concurrent deduction under Sections 80HHC and 80IB of the Act. This by following the decision of this Court in Associated Capsules P. Ltd., v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 332 ITR 42. (b) Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue does not d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
