9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he TPO and DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. TP Adjustment restricted only to the transaction between the Associated Enterprises (AEs) - HELD THAT:- As decided in Phoenix Mecvano (India)(P.) Ltd. [ 2017 (6) TMI 1240 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] we find that in terms of Chapter X of the Act, re-determination of the consideration is to be done only with regard to income arising from international Transactions on determination of ALP. The adjustment which is mandated is only in respect of International Transaction and not transactions entered into by assessee with independent unrelated third parties. This is particularly so as there is no issue of avoidance of tax requiring adjustment in the valuation in respect of transactions entered into with independent third parties. The adjustment as proposed by the Revenue if allowed would result in increasing the profit in respect of transactions entered into with non-AE. This adjustment is beyond the scope and ambit of Chapter X of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee. - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH For the Appellants: (By Sri. Sanmathi E I, Advocate). For the Respondent: (By Sri. T Suryanara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal are covered by the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (with regard to questions Nos. 1 to 3) and also of the High Court of Bombay (with regard to question No. 4). 4. On questions No. 1 to 3, he states the same are primarily relatable to Section 92 (BA) (i) which provision has been omitted by the Finance Act,2017 with effect from 01.04.2017. The Senior Counsel states though the assessment year is prior to the omission of the said provision with effect from 01.04.2017, but in view of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has followed the judgment of the Apex Court in Kohlapur Canesugar Works Ltd., Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2000 SC 811 and also in view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s. GE Thermometrics India private limited Vs the Commissioner of Income tax and another ITA Nos. 876/2008 and 877/2008 , the same need to be rejected. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that insofar as question No. 4 is concerned, the same is also covered against the Revenue in terms of the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thyssen Krupp Industries India (P.) Ltd., reported in [20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in an enactment and its effect thereof. The import of Section 6 of General Clauses Act has also been examined and it came to be held: 37. The position is well known that at common law, the normal effect of repealing a statute or deleting a provision is to obliterate it from the statute-book as completely as if it had never been passed, and the statute must be considered as a law that never existed. To this rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions of Section 6 (1). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds them, and if final relief has not been granted before the omission goes into effect, it cannot be granted afterwards. Savings of the nature contained in Section 6 or in special Acts may modify the position. Thus the operation of repeal or deletion as to the future and the past largely depends on the savings applicable. In a case where a particular provision in a statute is omitted and in its place another provision dealing with the same contingency is introduced without a saving clause in favour o pending proceedings then it can be reasonably inferred that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als i.e., ITA No.392/2018 and ITA No. 170/2019 are dismissed. ii) Order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in IT(TP)A No. 1722/Bang/2017 is affirmed. 6. Insofar as issue No. 4 is concerned, the substantial question of law framed by the Bombay High Court is identical to the question No. 4 in this appeal. The question is reproduced as under: (a) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and law, the Tribunal was justified in law in restricting the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment only to the transaction between the Associated Enterprises (AEs)? 7. The findings of the Bombay High Court on the aforesaid question can be seen in paragraph Nos. 3 (d) and (e) of the judgment as under: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (d) The grievance of the Revenue before us is that the adjustment is not to be restricted only in respect of transactions entered into with the AE. All the transactions of the respondent-Assessee would have necessarily be varied/adjusted by the margin arrived at by the TPO to arrive at the ALP. (e) We find that in terms of Chapter X of the Act, re-determination of the consideration is to be done only with regard to income arising from i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
