9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income." 2. For convenience, we may record facts from Income Tax Appeal No.4/2017. The Respondent-Assessee is a private limited company. In the return of incometax filed by the assessee for the assessment year 20072008, the question of determination of Arm's Length Price of the transaction entered into by the assessee with its international Associated Enterprises came up for consideration. The Assessee has 96% of its such transactions with its US based associated enterprise. The rest of the transactions are non-US based transactions. In relation to the US based transactions, the Government of India and that of United States of America entered into a Mutually Agreed Procedure for determining the tax to be levied in the two countries in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culmination of the MAP can be projected in the determination of the Arm's Length Price in the mechanism envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961, that too, without any other adjustment or consideration. This larger question, however, we are not required to examine in the present Appeal for the following reasons. 5. The tribunal in the impugned judgment, while adopting the same parameters as laid down in relation to US based transaction in the MAP for the purpose of determining Arm's Length Price in relation to the assessee's non-US based transactions, observed that there is no distinction between US and non-US based transactions. Even orders by the authorities had made no such distinction. Even then, an argument may still be o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icing adjustment and secondly, the CBDT in the later year agreed that such transfer pricing consideration in relation to US based transactions can be safely adopted for the purpose of the assessee's non-US based transactions. In the present year, therefore it would be wholly inappropriate to allow the revenue to argue to the contrary. 8. We notice that the revenue has presented two more questions which read as under; "(a) Whether in law and on the facts of the instant cases, was the Tribunal justified in holding that exemption u/s 10A is allowable prior to the setting off, of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation? (b) Whether in law and on the facts of the instant case, was the Tribunal justified in holding that interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view from that having been taken in the order passed by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2004-05. Moreover, nothing has been shown to us which would indicate that the Tribunal's order for the A.Y. 2004-05 has not been accepted by the Revenue. (iii) In these circumstances, question no.(b) as framed also does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. Regarding Question no.(c) 3. So far as question no.(c) is concerned. Mr.Pinto learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that the issue stands covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 72. In the above view, the question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
