9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted the issue with regard to market risk adjustment to the Assessing Officer in the light of the decision, which have been cited in the order of the Tribunal. We deem it appropriate to modify the aforesaid directions contained in the order of the Tribunal and direct the Assessing Officer to determine the issue with regard to market risk adjustment afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is answered. Deduction u/s 10B - reimbursement of traveling and technical services charges incurred in foreign currency - The third and fourth substantial questions of law are against the revenue and are covered by the by decision of the Supreme Court in HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD [ 2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cannot be measured accurately? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that reimbursement of traveling and technical services charges incurred in foreign currency are to be excluded both from total turnover as well as from export turnover for computation of deduction under Section 10B whereas such exclusion is permitted to arrive at export turnover only as per the definitions given in Section 10B of the Act and total turnover has not been defined in the Section? (iv) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the deduction under Section 10B should be computed in the above manner following the judgment of jurisdictional High court in the case of CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the assessee wherein Arm s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions was determined at ₹ 40,34,77,023/- as against revenue of ₹ 36,90,62,491/- charged by the assessee. 3. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued a draft assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act on 23.10.2011, by which income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 3,52,21,859/- as against the return income of ₹ 4,24,888/- and ₹ 3,05,84,109/- under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions as computed by the assessee. The assessee filed objections to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) being aggrieved, by the draft assessment order. The Dispute Resolution Panel by an order dated 04.07.2012 rejected the ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risk adjustment ought to have been remitted for consideration afresh in accordance with law. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee while inviting the attention of this court to the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that the first substantial question of law does not arise for consideration in the fact situation of the case as the issues have been dealt with on merits by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the issue with regard to market risk adjustment has rightly been remitted to the Tribunal and substantial questions of law 3 and 4 in fact are concluded against the revenue in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. supra . It is also pointed out that no substantial question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
