9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be by 5% or at the difference of PLR of the RBI and the banks, and directed the TPO to consider all the contentions and decide the percentage of risk adjustments to be made in accordance with law. Respectfully following the decision of INTELLINET TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P.) LTD. [ 2012 (6) TMI 237 - ITAT BANGALORE] as above the TPO is directed to decide the percentage of risk adjustments to be calculated in this case. Controversy involved herein is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in M/s.Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (6) TMI 1327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] wherein it has been observed that unless the finding of the Tribunal is found ex facie perverse, the Appeal u/s. 260-A of the Act, is not maintainable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alore Bench A , Bangalore, in I.T. [T.P]A. No.289/Bang/2016 dated 08.09.2016, relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.The appeal has been admitted on 05.12.2017 to consider the substantial question of law formulated in the appeal memorandum, which reads thus: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the assessing authority / transfer pricing officer to allow risk adjustment of 1% to the assessee as per prevailing norms by following its earlier decision in case of Intellinet Technologies P. Ltd., in ITA No.1237/Bang/2007 which has been challenged before this Hon ble Court and even when no adjustment on account of risk is required to be allowed to assessee as per Rule 10( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with law. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble ITAT Bangalore as above the TPO is directed to decide the percentage of risk adjustments to be calculated in this case. By means of guidance, it may be mentioned that in the case of DCIT Vs. Hello Soft Pvt. Ltd., [2013] 32 taxmann.com 101 [ITAT, Hyd] 1% adjustment to the average margin was provided towards risk differential. 4. We are of the opinion that Revenue s grounds are misconceived and hence we dismiss the same. 4.The controversy involved herein is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in I.T.A. Nos.536/2015 c/w 537/2015 dated 25.06.2018 [Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax Anr. V/s. M/s.Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd.,], wherein it has been observed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 260-A of the Act and thus the appeals filed by the Revenue are found to be devoid of merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. 57. We make it clear that the same yardsticks and parameters will have to be applied, even if such appeals are filed by the Assessees, because, there may be cases where the Tribunal giving its own reasons and findings has found certain comparables to be good comparables to arrive at an Arm s Length Price in the case of the assessees with which the assessees may not be satisfied and have filed such appeals before this Court. Therefore we clarify that mere dissatisfaction with the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not at all a sufficient reason to invoke Section 260-Aof the Act befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
