9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the subject Assessment Year as excluded while arriving at the profit of the Respondent-Assessee, then even in the absence of M/s. Rajasthan Udyog & Tools Ltd., and M/s. Hitco Tools Ltd., being considered to be a comparable, the profit margin of the Respondent-Assessee, would fall within +/5% of the profit margin of the comparables as permitted under Section 92C of the Act - Income Tax Appeal No. 1088 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA SANDEEP K. SHINDE,JJ. Mr. Sham Walve, for the Appellant. Mr. Jehangir D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A. K, Jasani, for the Respondent. P.C: This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 27th September, 2013 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... November, 2015; (ii) CIT v/s. Goldstar Jewellery Design (P) Ltd., (Income Tax Appeal No.2237 of 2013) rendered on 4th February, 2016 ; (iii) CIT v/s. Alstom Projects India Ltd., (Income Tax Appeal No.362 of 2014) rendered on 14th September, 2016; and (iv) CIT v/s. M/s. Bhansali Co., (Income Tax Appeal No.1066 of 2014) rendered on 9th December, 2016. (ii) Besides the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the issue also stands covered by the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v/s. Keihin Panalfa Ltd., (Income Tax Appeal No.11 of 2015) rendered on 9th September, 2015. (iii) In all the aforesaid decisions, it has been held that the Transfer Pricing Adjustment is not to be done at the entity level but only in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 2007-08 by the TPO. It further records that no reason has been brought on record by the Revenue as to why for the subject Assessment Year, M/s. Rajasthan Udyog Tools Ltd., ceased to be a comparable. The impugned order further records that only the segment relating to cutting tools i.e. Diamond tools and Gang Saw Blades segment of M/s. Rajasthan Udyog Tools Ltd., has been taken for comparison. Therefore, functionally comparable. It was not a case of taking profit margin at the entity level of M/s. Rajasthan Udyog Tools Ltd., Thus, comparable to be included in the list of comparables to arrive at the ALP to make Transfer Pricing Adjustment in respect of Respondent's transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE). (iv) W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 6. It may be pointed out that it was also submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the question Nos. (b) and (c) are academic. This in view of the fact that if the extra ordinary loss incurred in the subject Assessment Year as excluded while arriving at the profit of the Respondent-Assessee, then even in the absence of M/s. Rajasthan Udyog Tools Ltd., and M/s. Hitco Tools Ltd., being considered to be a comparable, the profit margin of the Respondent-Assessee, would fall within +/5% of the profit margin of the comparables as permitted under Section 92C of the Act. However, in view of our finding in respect of Question Nos.(b) and (c), we have not considered the merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
