9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (the Act) challenges the order dated 8th March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order relates to the Assessment Year 200203. 2. The learned counsel for the Revenue urges the following questions of law for our consideration : "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal while upholding the inclusion of 'SIRO C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arm's length price, it is not only the cost base, but also loss of probable income that should be considered while determining the ALP of the parties involved and therefore, interest was rightly included by the TPO in the cost because if the assessee company had applied its funds elsewhere, instead of giving interest free deposit, it would have generated some income which would have had impact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal it was the Revenue's submission as recorded in paragraph 16 of the impugned order that the issue be sent back to the Assessing Officer to make adjustment in view of the difference in the business model between M/s. Siro Clinpharm Pvt. Ltd. and the respondent - assessee. Therefore, we are unable to understand how the Revenue could have any grievance to the impugned order of the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)], decided this very issue in favour of the respondent-assessee. The Revenue has accepted the above order of CIT (A) and not challenged it before the Tribunal. In the above view, as the Revenue is not pressing question no.(ii), no substantial question of law for our consideration cannot arise. Accordingly, question no.(ii) is not entertained. 5. Regarding question n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
