9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain with Mr. Mukesh Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Ms. Archana JUDGMENT 1. In all these appeals, common question of law and facts are involved and as they relate to the same assessee, these appeals were heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department and cross objection of the assessee as well as appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 3. This court while admitting the appeal framed following substantial question of law:- 3.1 Appeal No.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as considered and properly examined. The same is summarised below: (1) Camex Intermediaries Ltd.: The business activities of this company comprised of 2 segments in F.Y. 2002-03, out of which one segment was manufacturing of dyes and pigments . The segmental data for this company was available for F.Y. 02-03 and accordingly the assessee had identified it as a comparable. However, the date for 03-04 and 04-05 were not available on the date, of the study as well as on date. As mentioned earlier, the comparable companies whose contemporary data was available have been taken in the fresh analysis as it best describes the economic scenario and identical market condition. Hence, the margin of this company is not considered for benchmarking the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Hence it is inferred that M/s Atul Ltd. has significant related party Transactions and hence the same is rejected. Further, the products of M/s Atul Ltd. show that it has a varied group of products, such as Sulpha drug intermediates, pharmaceutical intermediates, disinfectants etc. This clearly chows that even the product range of this company are not comparable.. Companies added for benchmarking Manufacturing function margin:. The assessee deals in printing inks with NIC Code 24222. However a search on CMIE (Prowess) database revealed that 2 companies had not been included in the list of comparables. While M/s Indian Toners Developers Ltd. had been taken out by the assessee on the basis of non-comparable product , the company M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. The assessee objected by claiming that DIC had only 6.27% related party transactions as compared to its sales, and hence this cannot be considered significant. On the other hand, this company had been taken out in the manufacturing function on account of non-comparable products (by the assessee). However, it was seen that this also dealing in printing inks. Hence, this is considered a Comparable under both the segments. (2) Metrochem Industries Ltd.: It was proposed to be excluded on account of product differences. The assessee has objected to the same by claiming that this company is dealing in dyes intermediates and hence should be considered. It is observed that this company has been taken as a comparable in the manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts decision in Carlyle India Advisors (P.) Ltd. (supra). It must be noted that the figures of IDC (India) Ltd. to arrive at the ALP were of the subject Assessment Year. It may also be pointed out that the decision of the Tribunal in case of Carlyle India Advisors (P.) Ltd. (supra) was the subject matter to challenge by the Revenue before this Court. This Court by an order dated 22nd February, 2013 refused to entertain the appeal of the Revenue CIT v. Carlyle India Advisors (P.) Ltd. MANU/MH/0544/2013 : [2013] 357 ITR 584/214 Taxman 492/32 taxmann.com 23 (Bom.). 8. We note that finding of the comparable to be adopted to determine the ALP as the basis of the activity conducted by the respondent-assessee is essentially a finding of fact. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue carried the issue from the order of the Tribunal rendered on 4th April, 2012 in Carlyle India Advisors (P.) Ltd. {supra) to this Court in appeal. The appeal being {CIT v. Carlyle India Advisors (P.) Ltd. MANU/MH/0544/2013 : [2013] 32 taxmann.com 23 (Bom.)) - wherein this Court refused to entertain the Revenue's appeal as is reflected in the order dated 22nd February, 2013. Thus, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal; (b) In the circumstance, the Tribunal in the impugned order adopted the same comparable it had adopted in the case of Carlyle India Advisors (P.) Ltd. (supra) for the purpose of arriving at the ALP in respect of its International Transaction; (c) Further, Mr. Kotangale, learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
