9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooses both ways since it goes against the principles of quality and natural justice? - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [ 2018 (6) TMI 1327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that in these type of cases, unless an ex-facie perversity in the findings of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is established by the appellant, the appeal at the instance of an assessee or the Revenue u/s 260-A of the Act is not maintainable. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the present appeals filed by the Revenue do not give rise to any substantial question of law and the suggested substantial questions of law do not meet the requirements of Section 260-A of the Act and thus the appeals filed by the Revenue are found to be devoid of meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the TPO to consider the claim of risk adjustment even when there is no reliable method to convert the qualitative difference into quantitative difference and to make adjustment on account of risk level?. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in taking different stands on adjustments to comparables margins to make them comparable to the tested party, so that the assessee benefits both ways and Revenue looses both ways since it goes against the principles of quality and natural justice?. 3. In so far as the first substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is concerned, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the record, we find that the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Adaptec (India) P. Ltd. (supra) has considered identical issue in paras 10 11 as under:- xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 16. There is no allegation in the case of the assessee that the assessee has used any borrowed fund for working capital or there is any risk of money lost in credit time provided to the customers. Accordingly, following the order of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal cited above, we hold that negative working capital adjustment is not justified in the case of the assessee. 17. In the result, the appeal and the Cross Objection are partly allowed . 5. However, this Court in a recent judgment in ITA No.536/2015 C/w ITA No.537/2015 delivered on 25. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion of law. 56. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the present appeals filed by the Revenue do not give rise to any substantial question of law and the suggested substantial questions of law do not meet the requirements of Section 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
