9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT invoked section 10A(7) of the Act read with section 80IA(10) of the Act on his own assumption and without recording an objective finding that the appellant has earned more than ordinary profit. 3) The Ld. CIT erred in giving directions to the AO to revise the assessment by applying the provisions of Section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act: a) The Ld. CIT did not demonstrate how the affairs between the appellant and its associate enterprise can be said to be arranged so as to yield more than ordinary profit to the appellant, which is an essential prerequisite to invoke Section 80IA(10) of the Act; b) The Ld. CIT failed to appreciate that invoking Section 10A(7) would essentially result in taxation not in accordance with the tax treaty between the Government of India and the United States; c) The Ld. CIT failed to appreciate that there is no erosion of Indian tax base so as to invoke Section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act. 3. The issue in the present appeal is against the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. 4. Briefly in the facts of the case the assessee has filed the return of income declaring gross income of Rs. 56 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Business Support Services, the deduction under section 10A was required to be restricted in view of the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer had failed to apply the aforementioned provisions of the Act, the Commissioner considered the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to explain its case. In response the assessee filed written submissions which are incorporated at pages 4 to 14 of the order of Commissioner. 5. The assessee explained the nature of Business Support Services and Design Engineering Services provided to its Associated Enterprises and pointed out that there was no merit in comparing the profitability of the Design Engineering Services with that of Business Support Services, so as to conclude that the Engineering Centre was earning more than ordinary profits, as contemplated under section 80IA(10) of the Act, with a view to restrict to Engineering Centre's on tax holiday under section 10A of the Act by resorting to section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the AO and it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. (iii) An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will suffice the requirement of order being erroneous. (iv) If the order is passed without application of mind, such order will fall under the category of erroneous order. (v) Every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and if the AO has adopted one of the courses permissible under law or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable under law. (vi) If while making the assessment, the AO examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income, the CIT, while exercising his power u/s.263 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the AO. (vii) The AO exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though they were found to be not very dissimilar, the wide variation between the operating profit margins of the two services should have instigated the Assessing Officer to apply the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act. The Commissioner took note of the order of TPO, who according to the assessee had accepted the operating profit of the assessee with respect to Engineering Design and Development Services without making any adjustment to the claim of the assessee under section 10A of the Act and referred to the order of TPO vide para 8.2 to 8.4 which are reproduced at pages 24 and 25 of the order of Commissioner. The Commissioner was of the view that in view of the said specific findings of TPO, the Assessing Officer had grossly erred in not applying his mind in making any enquiry even though it was prima-facie warranted. The assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind was therefore held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Commissioner thereafter met with each of the objections raised by the assessee in response to notice under section 263 of the Act. It was specifically observed by the Commissioner t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and Development Services, as vehemently argued by the assessee. The Commissioner further directed that the deduction under section 10A of the Act may be restricted, if required, accordingly, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. The assessee is in appeal against the order of Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. 12. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee pointed out that the Commissioner vide his order under section 263 of the Act has observed that the assessee had earned more than ordinary profits from business and hence the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act are attracted. He further pointed out that the first issue which is raised in the present appeal is whether assumption of jurisdiction was correctly exercised by the Commissioner. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee further pointed out that the assessee was providing Engineering Design and Development Services in the unit which was approved by the STPI and the total turnover was Rs. 60.67 crores. Further it was also providing Business Support Services to its Associated Enterprises which was a non STPI unit and the total turnover was Rs. 2.66 cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rised Representative for the assessee pointed out that the TPO at no place had compared the results of the BSS segment with the results of the Engineering Design Services but had adopted external comparables for comparison. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee thereafter took us through the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner wherein the allegation was that the assessee had earned higher operating margins in Engineering Design Services as compared to the BSS segment and because of these higher operating margins the Commissioner had applied section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) of the Act. Our attention was further drawn to the detailed submissions made by the assessee before the Commissioner who inturn summarized the conditions to be applied for invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, which in the present case is not satisfied. He further referred to page 23 of the order of Commissioner to point out that the conclusion of the Commissioner was that the two services were to be benchmarked, however, where the services were not comparable and even the TPO had not applied the results for either of the divisions to make a comparison and the TPO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arate because of the nature of working, then it cannot be said that there was an arrangement between the two. He further stressed that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions of the Tribunal : 1. M/s. Honeywell Automation India Limited Vs. DCIT in ITGA No.18/PN/2011 order dated 25-02-2015. 2. Tata Johnson Controls Automotive Limited Vs. DCIT and vice versa in ITA Nos. 1450 and 1454/PN/2011 order dated 09-12-2015 3. CIT Vs. M/s. Schmetz India Pvt. Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No.1973/2013 order dated 30-09-2015 4. CIT Vs. M/s. Schmetz India Pvt. Ltd. in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil No.2013/2016 order dated 08-02-2016 5. CIT Vs. M/s. Schmetz India Pvt. Ltd. in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil No.6097/2016 order dated 08-04-2016 6. CIT Vs. M/s. Schmetz India Pvt. Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No.1382/2013 order dated 24-06-2015 15. The Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that where the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue then the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner was correct. He placed reliance on the decision of CIT Vs. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s had applied CUP method and the same was also applied by the TPO and the said international transaction was accepted to be at Arm's Length. It may be clarified herein itself that the net profit shown by the assessee for the year under consideration was 72.98% in the Engineering Design Services. The working of operating margin on total cost is to be adopted if TNM method is used as the most appropriate methods. However, both the assessee and the TPO applied the CUP method and the said working of operating margin on total cost at 270% had no application and was not used for determining the Arm's Length price of the international transaction undertaken by the assessee in the said division. The assessee had explained that it was providing complex engineering activities such as advance technological and product development services to its Associated Enterprises and because the cost provided by the assessee were controlled, the assessee had shown net profit of Rs. 44.27 crores on total value of services provided at Rs. 60.67 crores. In addition, the assessee had another unit which was a non STPI unit, under which the assessee was providing Business Support Services and the operating mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra), the dispute arose vis-à-vis the entitlement of the assessee for the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act which was curtailed based on the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act. The TPO in the said case had restricted the profits eligible for the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act, as the profits in relation to the 10A units were more than the ordinary profits. The Assessing Officer accordingly re-computed the amounts of profit which he considered as reasonable to have been derived in terms of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act. The assessee in its Transfer Pricing Study in the said case had benchmarked the international transaction by selecting the TNM Method. The TPO on a reference by the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act accepting the international transaction with respect to the software engineering services segment to be at arm's length. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the profit margins in respect of the 10A unit was substantially higher than the profit margin of the comparables chosen by the assessee while carrying out the comparability analysis under the TNM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, "market value", in relation to any goods or services, means the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market.] (9) xxxxxxxxxx (10) Where it appears to the Assessing Officer that, owing to the close connection between the assessee carrying on the eligible business to which this section applies and any other person, or for any other reason, the course of business between them is so arranged that the business transacted between them produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits which might be expected to arise in such eligible business, the Assessing Officer shall, in computing the profits and gains of such eligible business for the purposes of the deduction under this section, take the amount of profits as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived therefrom." 9. Section 10A of the Act is a special provision in respect of newly established undertakings in free trade zone, etc.. Section 10A postulates a deduction of such profits and gains as are derived by an undertaking from the export of articles or things or computer software for a period of ten assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer is to invoke the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act then the onus is on him to justify such invocation having regard to the cogent material and evidence on record. On this aspect of the matter, there was no dispute between the rival counsels inasmuch as the Ld. CIT-DR quite fairly agreed that the onus was on the Assessing Officer to justify invoking of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act in the facts of a given case. Nevertheless, on this aspect, we may also make a reference to the judgement of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. H.P. Global Soft Ltd., 342 ITR 263, which was referred to in the course of hearing before us. In the case before the Karnataka High Court, the issue was similar inasmuch as therein, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of section 80-I(9) r.w.s. 10A(6) of the Act while re-determining the claim of exemption in terms of the then prevailing section 10A(4) of the Act, and the assessment years were 1995-96 to 1998-99. The provisions of section 10A(6) r.w.s. 80-I(9) of the Act, which were before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court are quite similar to the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter-alia, held that the Assessing Officer has not been able to prove that any arrangement had been arrived between the parties which resulted in extraordinary profits to the respondent-assessee's manufacturing division at Kandla. Consequently, the working of the profits by the Assessing Officer was not approved. The aforesaid action of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. On this aspect, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Digital Equipment India Ltd. vs. DCIT, 103 TTJ 329 (Bang.) has also held that the conditions of the section have to be objectively satisfied by the Assessing Officer, based on cogent reasoning and evidence. 12. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative for the assessee vehemently argued that the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act are inapplicable in the present case because there is no material lead by the Revenue to say that there was any arrangement between the assessee and the associated enterprises which produced to the assessee more than the 'ordinary profits' within the meaning of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. According to the Ld. Representative, the transactions of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee are much lower than other software companies because assessee was hiring electronics and process engineering Graduates/Diploma holders and not software professionals. It is also pointed out that assessee has a lower rate of idle staff as it works mostly on in-house Honeywell Technology and therefore the productivity of the employees is much higher than other software companies. Further, it was also pointed out that assessee was reimbursed all the costs, like foreign travel and living expenses incurred abroad by its employees in the course of rendering engineering/software services. Assessee was also reimbursed incidental expenses incurred by it viz. visa costs, work permit costs, etc. and therefore the cost of sales was on lower side, as a result of which the percentage of Operating profit to total cost shows a higher percentage, although the impact on profit remains unaltered. All these points, which were raised before the Assessing Officer, have been reiterated before us to show that the higher profits are not attributable to any arrangement with associated enterprises but due to business reasons. 15. Apart therefrom, it has also been pointed out that assessee is a publ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. 17. The Ld. CIT-DR has made detailed submissions in support of the invoking of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act in the present case. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that section 80-IA(10) of the Act placed much lighter burden of proof on the Assessing Officer because of the presence of the expression "it appears" in section 80-IA(10) of the Act. According to the Ld. CIT-DR, section 80-IA(10) can be invoked by the Assessing Officer when 'it appears' to him, and it is not subject to the Assessing Officer's belief or satisfaction as is the case with invoking of section 147/148, etc.. The following portion of section 80-IA(10) of the Act was emphasized "...........the Assessing Officer shall, in computing the profits and gains of such eligible business for the purposes of the deduction under this section, take the amount of profits as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived........." to say that it does not require the Assessing Officer to precisely determine the eligible profits, but only a prima-facie satisfaction about presence of more than the ordinary profits would suffice. It is sought to be emphasized that because of the presence of the words ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordinary profits, necessary condition for invoking section 80-IA(10) of the Act is satisfied. 20. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, the Ld. CIT-DR has made other pleas also to justify the restriction of deduction u/s 10A of the Act. In this context, he has pointed out that even the Safe Harbor Rules issued by the CBDT with respect to the Transfer Pricing assessment provide for 20% operating profit as an acceptable profit in IT enabled services segment and therefore that was a good benchmark as to what constitutes 'ordinary profits' in the assessee's impugned line of business. The Ld. CIT-DR also made a submission that even if the computation of excess profits done by the Assessing Officer based on the margin of the comparable is not found to be a good methodology, yet the failure of computation process by the Assessing Officer would not vitiate the invoking section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act in the present case. The excess profits according to him can be computed by an appropriate method by remanding the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. In any case, it has been contended section 80-IA(10) of the Act requires computing of 'more than ordinary profits' i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied sub-section (9) of section 80-I empowers the Income-tax Officer to determine the reasonable profits that could be attributed to the qualifying undertaking in the free trade zone in cases where, owing to the close connection between the Assessee and any other persons or for any other reason, the course of the business is so arranged that the industrial undertaking set up in the free trade zone derives more than ordinary profits which may be expected to arise in that business. This provision has been made with a view to avoiding abuse of the new tax concessions by manipulation of profits between associate concerns or different units of the same concern." [underlined for emphasis by us] 23. Quite clearly, the provisions of section 10A(7) of the Act intend to plug abuse of tax concession by manipulation of profits between associated concerns or between different units of the same concern. The objective of the aforesaid Provision is that the tax concessions are not abused by manipulation of profits. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid explanation in the CBDT Circular (supra) signifies the legislative intent and it is also manifested in the language of section 10A(7) r.w.s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use the tax concessions granted u/s 10A of the Act by manipulating profits between associated persons. Ostensibly, the same is required to be demonstrated on the basis of a cogent material and evidence. In other words, the presence of the expression "so arranged" has to be understood in the context of the abuse of tax concession which is sought to be plugged by the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. 24. On this aspect, the Ld. CIT-DR had vehemently argued, based on the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of India Ltd. (supra) that the meaning of the word "arranged' in section 80-IA(10) of the Act has to be understood to mean an agreement or an understanding between the parties concerned. The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has been reproduced in the earlier part of this order, according to which, it is said that the term arrangement in plain language means any agreement or understanding between the parties concerned. On this basis, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that undeniably there is an agreement between the assessee and the associated enterprises whereby the services have been provided by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-fact, even the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of India Ltd. (supra) has also appreciated the contextual meaning of the expression "arrangement". The issue before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was with regard to the scheme of re-construction or arrangement contained in section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. In the context of section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, the Hon'ble High Court was dealing with the meaning of the word "arrangement". After having explained the meaning of the term arrangement in plain language, which we have referred earlier, the Hon'ble High Court went on to say as under in the context of the word "arrangement" qua section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 :- "Section 391(1), however, in any opinion somewhat restricts this otherwise unlimited import of the term "arrangement" in so far as the said section applies only to an agreement or understanding between the company and its creditors or any class of them, or between the company and its members or any class of them, or between the company and its members or any class of them, which would necessarily mean that it must be an agreement or understanding which affects their rights" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra), wherein similar argument from the side of the Revenue has been addressed. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal was dealing with invoking of section 10A(6) r.w.s. 80-I(9) of the Act for assessment year 1995-96, which are pari-materia to section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act invoked by the Revenue before us. The following discussion is relevant :- "The requirements under the section are : (a) There must be a close connection between the appellant and other person. (b) The course of business between them should be so arranged that it produces to the appellant more than the ordinary profits from such business. To satisfy the above test the AO has to adduce evidence and reasons cogently and the same is open to verification by the appellate authorities. The primary rule of evidence is that "what is apparent is real" unless proved otherwise by the person alleging it otherwise. The manner of satisfaction outlined in the section should be based on evidence and not on surmise or suspicion. The question is not whether the onus is light or heavy but whether the AO has discussed objectively the conditions mentioned in the section to disturb the results declared by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. We find that in the entire assessment order, there is no material or any evidence which has been brought out to say that the course of business between assessee and the associated enterprises has been so arranged that the business transacted has produced to the assessee more than the ordinary profits. 31. No doubt, there is a close connection between assessee and the associated enterprises and to that extent section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act has been rightly examined by the income-tax authorities. The second aspect that the course of business was so arranged so as to result in more than ordinary profits is not at all forthcoming from the order of the Assessing Officer. There is no material or evidence referred to in the assessment order to indicate that the course of business has been so arranged so as to inflate profits with the intent to abuse tax concession u/s 10A of the Act. At this point, we may make a reference to the stand of the Assessing Officer that the operating profit margins of the assessee are substantially higher than the average operating margin of the comparables selected by the assessee in its Transfer Pricing Study. This has formed the basis f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, where in a case, the Transfer Pricing Officer suggests that the operating profit declared by an assessee is compatible to the arm's length price norms and no adjustment is necessary, the operation of all those provisions come to an end. If the, Assessing Officer has to make any other adjustment towards computing deduction available under section 10A, the computation has to be made in the context of section 10A(7) read with section 80-IA(10). It is clear that in a case of transfer pricing assessment, it has got two segments. The first segment consists of rules and procedures for computing the income other than the income arising out of international transactions with associate enterprise. The second segment consists of rules and procedures in connection with computation of income from international transactions with associate enterprises on the basis of the arm's length price. The second segment relating to computation of the arm's length price, is a set of rules for the purposes of transfer pricing matters and those procedures and rules can be used only for the purpose serving the object of section 92. When the Transfer Pricing Officer states that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is accordingly, deleted." 32. In our considered opinion, the result of the Transfer Pricing assessment can at best be taken as an indicator for the Assessing Officer to investigate as to whether or not there exists any arrangement which has resulted in more than ordinary profits qua the requirements of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. Even if it is accepted that the difference between the operating margins of the assessee and the comparables show existence of more than the ordinary profits in the hands of the assessee, so however, it was still imperative for the Assessing Officer to establish on the basis of substantive evidence and corroborative material that qua section 10A r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act, the course of business between the assessee and the associated enterprises is so arranged that the business transacted between them produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits with the intent of abusing tax concession. Quite clearly, in the entire assessment order, there is no whisper of any material or evidence in this regard. In-fact, the approach of the Assessing Officer is quite misdirected as the following discussion in his order shows :- "According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The onus is upon the department to prove that there existed an arrangement between the assessee and its Associated Enterprises to earn more than ordinary profits and in the absence of the said onus having been discharged by the department and following the parity of reasoning as in Honeywell Turbo Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and Tata Johnson Controls Automotive Limited Vs. DCIT (supra), we find no merit in the order of the Commissioner passed under section 263 of the Act in holding that the Assessing Officer while granting deduction under section 10A of the Act has passed the said order without any application of mind. Similar issue of invoking of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner curtailing the deduction under section 10B(7) r.w.s. 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) of the Act arose before the Tribunal in Spicer India Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and the Tribunal vide order dated 08-07-2015 in similar circumstances had reversed the order of the Commissioner passed under section 263 of the Act. 24. Where the Assessing Officer in his order considered the claim of assessee under section 10A of the Act and allowed the same, merely because the Commissioner is not ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the TPO has not applied TNM method but has applied CUP method. The information with regard to operating profit margin over cost was provided to the TPO during TP assessment proceedings but has not been applied by the TPO. In any case where the Engineering Design & Development Services were benchmarked on CUP method by the TPO, the same establishes the case of the assessee that the two divisions are separate and distinct and cannot be compared. In the absence of same, there is no merit in the order of the Commissioner in holding that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind in comparing operating profit margin over cost of two separate divisions of the assessee. It may also be pointed out herein itself that the total turnover of Engineering Design and Development Services was Rs. 60.67 crorees and under the Design & Development Services the total turnover of international transaction was only Rs. 2.66 crores. Because the order of the TPO in this regard has become final and has been accepted by the Assessing Officer under which no addition has been made in the margins shown by the Engineering Design and Development Services, there is no merit in the order of Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner that the Assessing Officer has not verified the claim of the assessee in view of the provisions of section 10A r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act does not stand in view of our discussion in the paras given above and the same is also dismissed. 27. One more aspect which has been noted by the Commissioner is that the Assessing Officer has not verified whether the cost shown by the assessee in the said unit is correct or not resulting in showing higher profits in the said unit. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee has referred to the submissions made before the TPO during the assessment proceedings in this regard and the TPO having accepted the profit margins shown by the assessee in respect of the international transactions with its Associated Enterprises to be at Arm's Length Price, we find no merit in the observations of the Commissioner in this regard and the same are dismissed. 28. The Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works (supra) and we find no merit in the said reliance as the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
