2018 (8) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... b. Abhishek Tilak ORDER P.C: This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 9th January, 2015, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 9th January, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 200910. 2 Revenue urges only the following reframed questions of law, for our consideration: "(a) Whether .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... this risk is to be calculated? (d) Whether in law and on the facts of the given case, was the Tribunal justified in concluding that an adjustment of the price based on location advantages is not permissible in law and in the Rules therein?" 3 Re Question (a): (i) The RespondentAssessee is wholly owned subsidiary of an USA based company. The Respondent provides contract manufacture, contrac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... act that M/s. Dolphin Medical Services Ltd., is functionally rendering similar activities to that performed by RespondentAssessee inasmuch as it is in the business of clinical trial services i.e. functionally broadly similar. We also note that the impugned order of the Tribunal records the fact that this similarity is not disputed by the Revenue before it. We find that the DRP had excluded both Al .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Thus, not entertained. 4 Re Question (c): (i) The grievance of the Revenue is that no details were provided by the Respondent to the DRP on account of risk adjustment as claimed by it. Thus, it is submitted that the Tribunal could not have allowed the claim. We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal itself records the fact that the necessary material in support of its claim was given by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... age is called for. This, as both the comparables as well as and the Respondent, are situated in India. Thus, no locational difference. Consequently, no locational advantage. (iii) In the above view, the proposed question does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 6 Re. Question (b): Appeal admitted on the substantial question of law at (b). 7 Registry is d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X