9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted OTL as a comparable. The Tribunal, in our view, without discussing the scope and ambit of its power u/s 254, has proceeded to issue operative directions, which, inter alia, excluded OTL as a comparable. Given this position, counsel for the parties say, and something that we tend to agree with, that the matter needs a relook by the Tribunal, with regard to the scope and ambit of its power u/s 254 - Issue answered in favour of the appellant/assessee for statistical purposes. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA For the Appellant Through: Mr Deepak Chopra with Ms Rashi Khanna and Mr Pulkit Pandey, Advs. For the Respondent Through: Mr Aseem Chawla, Sr Standing Counsel with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal, via the impugned order dated 03.03.2023, passed the following operative directions: 13. In a nutshell, we hold that the following comparables are directed to be excluded:- Mitcon Consultancy Services L T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd Onward Technologies Ltd HCCA Business Services Pvt. Ltd Killick Agencies Mktg. Limited Cyber Media India Online Limited Times Innovative Media Limited Global Procurement Consultants Limited Indiacom Limited 6. The record shows that in the course of the proceedings conducted by the Tribunal, the following additional grounds were entertained by the Tribunal, at the behest of the respondent/revenue: (i) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Chopra contends that once the TPO accepted the comparable OTL, it could not have been excluded by the Tribunal in the exercise of powers under Section 254 of the Act. 8.1 Mr Chopra contends that the Assessing Officer (AO) had no option but to accept the order passed by the TPO. 8.2 According to Mr Chopra, if the respondent/revenue was aggrieved, it could have, at a relevant point in time, exercised revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act. 9. On the other hand, Mr Chawla contends that the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act has the same plenary power as the first appellate authority. 10. Mr Chawla contends that since facts were in dispute, the Tribunal could have entertained the additional grounds referred to hereinabo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
