9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T [ 2008 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT ] . The issue whether Infosys Ltd is comparable to the assessee and is functionally dissimilar is a finding of fact. From perusal of paragraphs 12 to 13.2.8 of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as para 21 and 22 of the order of the tribunal, it is evident that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the findings recorded by the transfer pricing officer and the same has been approved by the tribunal by assigning cogent reasons. The aforesaid findings are finding of fact. Even in substantial questions of law, no element of perversity has either been pleaded or demonstrated before this court. - Decided in favour of assessee. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enterprises. The assessee in the Assessment Year 2009-10 realised net profit margin of 15.45% in respect of international transactions with its associate enterprises. The assessee filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 in which income of ₹ 67,94,36,842/- was declared which included the income from other sources to the extent of ₹ 14,34,08,185/-. The assessee later on filed a revised return on 30.03.2011. The assessee had international transactions with its associate enterprises. Therefore, the Assessing Officer referred the case of the assessee to the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the Arms Length price. 3. The Transfer Pricing Officer, after examining the details furnished by the assessee, passed an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng study again. It is also argued that selective weeding out of comparables lead to distortion since the Tribunal did not deliberate over low margin comparables which may not need functional criteria set by the Tribunal, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse. It is also pointed out that the Tribunal has failed to consider the reasons assigned by the transfer pricing officer and therefore, the matter deserves to be remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee has taken us through the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal and has submitted that the Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and a decision on facts on the tribunal can be gone into by the High Court only if a question has been referred to it, which says the finding of the tribunal is perverse. [ SEE: SUDARSHAN SILKS SAREES VS. CIT , 300 ITR 205 SCC @ 211 and MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT , 378 ITR 640 (SC) @ 648 ]. The issue whether Infosys Ltd is comparable to the assessee and is functionally dissimilar is a finding of fact. From perusal of paragraphs 12 to 13.2.8 of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as para 21 and 22 of the order of the tribunal, it is evident that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt with the findings recorded by the transfer pricing officer and the same has been approved by the tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
