9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his being the position, if the Tribunal held that M/s. Alphageo was not comparable, it is a possible view, on analysis of the evidence. No substantial question of law and thus they are not entertained. Computation of Capital gain on relinquishment of its rights in the property - AO added a sum to the sale consideration being the deposit the respondent had made with State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) at the time of obtaining the lease and now returned to it - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has held that the refundable deposit of ₹ 1,86,46,800/- made by the respondent with SIPCOT, Tamil Nadu is allowable towards cost of acquisition of lease hold rights of the property in Tamil Nadu, which is now sold. The Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earch and development of seismic data functions similar to the functions performed by the assessee herein? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that Alphageo (India) Ltd. is not a comparable to the assessee s Research Technical Services business even though the assessee and the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has conducted comparability analysis by adopting the companies performing similar functions and activities without any similarity of products or industry? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that Alphageo (India) Ltd. is not a comparable to the assessee s Research Technical Services business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Alphageo) could be considered as comparable for bench marking to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of its services to its Associate Enterprises (AE). Thus, being considered together. 6. The case of the respondent assessee was selected for scrutiny. A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act (Act) for determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) in case of international transactions of respondent assessee. In its Transfer Pricing Study, the respondent assessee included 9 comparables, one of them was M/s. Alphageo. The TPO rejected three of the comparables as being functionally different. The respondent assessee had filed a reply and had stated that as three of the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. The main contention advanced by Mr. Suresh Kumar on this question is that as the respondent assessee having itself included M/s. Alphageo as one of the comparables then it cannot now argue that this entity should not have been considered as comparable. It is not the case of the Revenue before us that M/s. Alphageo is includable as comparable on merits, but only that the respondent had relied upon it as comparable in its transfer pricing study. This submission is not correct. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.P Morgan India (P) Ltd. (2019) 102 Taxmann.com 335 held that mere fact that the assessee included an entity in the list of comparables, would not bar the assessee fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Alphageo was held to be comparable to the assessee therein. This decision was rendered in the context of the Tribunal on facts finding that the Assessee therein and M/s. Alphageo are functionally comparable. In the present case, the Tribunal on facts found that M/s. Alphageo and the respondent are not comprable. Thus, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bosh (supra) does not assist the appellant. Therefore, questions (a), (b) and (c) do not give rise to any substantial question of law and thus they are not entertained. 14. As regards question (d) is concerned, the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny proceedings noted that the respondent had sold its property in Tamil Nadu. It showed the sale consideration at ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
