9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessment - Tribunal rejected revenue contentions - HELD THAT:- Merely because the assessee at one stage had referred to M/s Schrader Duncan Ltd. for the purpose of benchmarking, would not mean that the assessee cannot, even though the facts so suggest, take the legal contention that two were not comparable. On merits also the Tribunal examined the facts on record, found that the products manufactured and dealt with by the two companies were vastly different and that, therefore, there was no functional similarity between the assessee and the suggested comparable. No question of law, therefore, arise. Exclusion of M/s Areva T & D as comparable - turnover of the said company was high as compared to the assessee - TPO had rejected the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf had taken other companies as comparables which only had similar functions as that of the assessee and did not have the same products as that of the assessee as is evident from the description of final comparables by the assessee as given in Annexure-5 of its Transfer Pricing Study Report? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in excluding M/s Shrander Duncan Limited as comparable on grounds that the company is functionally different without appreciating that the assessee itself had selected the company as comparable in Transfer Pricing Study Report? (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in excluding M/s Areva T & D as comparable on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in different industries. They were, however, not pneumatic products. On the other hand M/s Schrader Duncan Ltd. was engaged in the fields of automatic industry and pneumatic industry. The main activity undertaken by M/s Schrader Duncan Ltd. was of manufacturing hydraulic and pneumatic equipments. It was also engaged in trading of such equipments. Such equipments are used as tyre pressure gauges in automotive sector. The Tribunal, therefore, accepted the assessee's contention that the products manufactured by the assessee were vastly different from those manufactured by M/s Schrader Duncan Ltd. It was because of these reasons that the Tribunal held that the margin shown by M/s Schrader Duncan Ltd. cannot be applied in order to benchmark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & D was engaged in Power Transmission and Distribution Business and dealt in products such as circuit breakers, transmitters switch gears, distribution transformers etc. The company was designing, manufacturing, installing complete range of high and medium voltage products and also secondary distribution equipments for the electricity transmission and distribution networks. On the other hand the assessee company was engaged in the activity of manufacturing and marketing measuring instruments. The Tribunal also noted that the said M/s Areva T & D had turnover of ₹ 2,800 Crores as compared to the assessee's total turnover for the year under consideration being ₹ 600 Crores. In totality of such facts, the Tribunal upheld the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
