9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial year in question vis- -vis the earlier years. There is not even a whisper alleging any such change while calling upon fresh analysis of comparability. We have not been shown that the Tribunal committed any perversity in reaching the conclusion it reached in the matter. No substantial question of law. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA For the Appellant Through: Mr Kunal Sharma, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Zehra Khan, Standing Counsel. For the Respondent Through: Mr Mayank Aggarwal, Adv. GIRISH KATHPALIA, J. 1. By way of this appeal brought under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the revenue has assailed order dated 19.04.2022 of the learned Income Tax Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962 which specifies the factors to be considered for judging comparability. In the backdrop of above proposed questions, we heard learned counsel for both sides. 2. Briefly stated, circumstances leading to the present appeal are as follows. 2.1 The respondent/assessee, a company engaged in providing investment advisory services to its overseas Associated Enterprise (AE), earned revenue of Rs. 48,49,75,777/- during the financial year concerning the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2.2 For the purposes of benchmarking its transactions with the AE, the respondent/assessee selected Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method and for that purpose, selected four companies as comparables. Applying the profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rporate Advisors) and Keynote Corporate Services Limited and to also give working capital adjustment, but the respondent/assessee vide letter dated 26.10.2015 asked the TPO to complete the process at the level of the latter. 2.6 As such, the TPO, following the recommendations of the DRP, carried out working capital adjustments and recomputed arms length price, which led to the Assessment Order dated 30.11.2015 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act at an assessed income of Rs. 23,78,88,160/- after making additions/adjustments of Rs. 11,82,53,407/- as against the previous adjustments of Rs. 13,79,85,005/-. 2.7 Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 30.11.2015, the respondent/assessee filed an appeal before the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was argued by learned counsel for appellant/revenue that selection of comparables for determination of arms length price of an International transaction has to be carried out on case to case basis, so the learned Tribunal erred in exclusion of certain comparables going simply by the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of respondent/assessee pertaining to the AY 2007-08 to 2009-10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee contended that the appeal is devoid of merit as no question of law is raised. 5. The impugned order clearly shows that the learned Tribunal not just followed the previous orders mentioned above to maintain consistency, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
