9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants, the appeal at the instance of an assessee or the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Act is not maintainable. No substantial question of law arises in the present case also X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed Representative and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the TPO has applied the filter of 25% RPT whereas the assessee has contended that the filter of revenue from RPT should be applied at 15% instead of 25% applied by the TPO. The learned Departmental Representative has submitted that there is no standard rule for applying the filter of 15% regarding the RPT. It is pertinent to note that the ALP as per the provisions of the TP has to be determined by considering uncontrolled comparable prices and therefore only unrelated prices have to be taken into account to bench marked international transactions. However, 0% RPT of the comparable price is an impossible situation and therefore a reasonable toleran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... threshold limit of RPT shall not be more than 15% of total revenue. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case when good number of comparables available, then we are of the considered opinion that the RPT filter of 15% is proper in the case of the assessee. By applying this filter of 15% RPT, we modify the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals) and therefore only one company namely Four Soft Limited will be excluded from the said comparable having more than 15% RPT. Accordingly, we direct the A.O./TPO to exclude the Four Soft Ltd. having 19.89% of RPT." "Considering the functional details as reported in the Annual Report and following the earlier orders of this Tribunal in the case of Kodiak (supra), we direct the A.O/TPO to exclude ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals of the present tenor as to whether the comparables have been rightly picked up or not, Filters for arriving at the correct list of comparables have been rightly applied or not, do not in our considered opinion, give rise to any substantial question 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
