9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of estoppal can arise. Moreover, the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Act, being self evident, the question as proposed, does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. Transfer Pricing Officer was referring to a financial year other than the subject financial year. Consequently, it could not be read as a comparable. Thus, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. Tested party is not functionally comparable to M/. Ultra Marine Pigments Ltd. as it is engaged in rendering Engineering and Technical Services while the Respondent Assessee is engaged in routine customer support services. Thus, the two services are not comparable. The bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lude M/s. Megasoft Ltd., M/s. Software Technology Group International Ltd. and M/s. Transworld Infotech Ltd. from the list of comparable companies without appreciating the fact that the above three comparable cases were submitted by the assessee itself as pertaining to F.Y. 2005 -06? (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in referring to Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules to hold that no case has been made out by the Transfer Pricing Officer for using the data for comparability for the earlier years when the Transfer Pricing Officer/Assessing Officer had specifically given a finding that data for F.Y.2005- 06 only has been used for comparability as provided by the assessee? (4) Whether on the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. Re. Question No.(2): (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to exclude M/s. Megasoft Ltd., M/s. Software Technology Group International Ltd. and M/s. Transworld Infotech Ltd. from the list of comparables while arriving at Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of its IT Services. (b) The grievance of the Revenue is that the Respondent Assessee had itself relied upon M/s. Megasoft Ltd., M/s. Software Technology Group International Ltd. and M/s. Transworld Infotech Ltd. as comparable for the Respondent Assessee's operations for the financial year 2005 -06. Therefore, it is submitted that it is not open to the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical question as raised herein as in Question Nos. (iv) and (v) therein. This Court, on 26 September 2016, passed an order in the above appeal finding that this question did not give rise to any substantial question of law. (b) Accordingly, for reasons mentioned in our order dated 26 September 2016 in Income Tax Appeal No.732 of 2014, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 7. Re. Question No.(5): (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal has rendered a finding of fact that the tested party is not functionally comparable to M/. Ultra Marine Pigments Ltd. as it is engaged in rendering Engineering and Technical Services while the Respondent Assessee is engaged in routine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
