9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of record. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had given justification for the payment of the commission and why it was at arm's length. It was pointed out that the commission paid by the assessee to the Associated Enterprise was at the rate of 7.84% as against 11% paid to unrelated party. It was found that the rate of commission ranged from 0.38% to 33.33% whereas the assessee's rate came to 3%. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue authority did not bring any comparable case on record to show that the payment of commission by the assessee to the associated enterprise was not at arm's length. - TAX APPEAL NO. 607 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR KM PARIKH, ADVOC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Official Liquidator and Others reported in 244 ITR 15 as relied upon by the A.O. In the assessment order? C. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in setting aside the finding of the C.I.T. (A) and directing the A.O. to delete the entire transfer pricing adjustment without appreciating that the A.O. had correctly computed arm's length price in accordance with the provision of section 92C of the Act? 2. In our opinion, only questionA requires consideration, for which purpose this tax appeal is admitted. However, we reframe the substantial question of law as under: Whether in facts of the case Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in reversing the view of the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given to justify it to be at arm's length. The TPO/A.O has nowhere denied that the weighted average rate of commission paid by the assessee is 7.84% as against 11% paid to unrelated party. We also find that in his appellate order, the First Appellate Authority has observed the rate of commission ranging from 0.38% to 33.33%, the assessee's rate is at 3%. We also find that none of the revenue authorities below have brought any comparable case on record to show that the payment of commission by the assessee is not at arm's length. On the contrary, we find that the A.O. has disallowed merely because he was of the opinion that no services have been rendered. This finding is beyond the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Act in as much ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
