Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1592 - HC - Income TaxSubstantial question of law - perversity in order of Tribunal - Transfer Pricing adjustment - exclusion of depreciation & interest for determination of operating profit - HELD THAT:- This court in Pr. CIT v. Softbrands India P. Ltd. [2018 (6) TMI 1327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] decided on June 25, 2018, 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 260A of the Act is not maintainable. Relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below This court cannot be expected to undertake the exercise of comparison of the comparables itself which is essentially a fact finding exercise. Neither the sufficient data nor factual informations and any technical expertise is available with this court to undertake any such fact finding exercise in the said appeals under section 260A of the Act. This court is only concerned with the question of law and that too a substantial one, which has a well-defined connotations as explained above and findings of facts arrived at by the Tribunal in these type of assessments like any other type of assessments in other regular assessment provisions of the Act, viz., sections 143, 147 etc. are final and are binding on this court. While dealing with these appeals under section 260A of the Act, we cannot disturb those findings of fact under section 260A of the Act, unless such findings are ex facie per verse and unsustainable and exhibit a total non-application of mind by the Tribunal to the relevant facts of the case and evidence before the Tribunal. Otherwise if the High Court takes the path of making such a comparative analysis and pronounces upon the questions as to which filter is good and which comparable is really a comparable case or not, it will drag the High Courts into a whirlpool of such data analysis defeating the very purpose and purport of the provisions of section 260A of the Act. Therefore what we observed above appears to us to be the sustainable view that the key to the lock for entering into the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 260A of the Act is the existence of a substantial question of law involved in the matter. The key of ex facie perversity of the findings of the Tribunal is duly established with relevant evidence and facts. Unless it is so, no other key or for that matter, even the inconsistent view taken by the Tribunal in different cases depending upon the relevant facts available before it cannot lead to the formation of a substantial question of law in any particular case to determine the aspects of determination of 'arm's length price' as is sought to be raised before us. This court is satisfied that no substantial question of law would arise in the present case and the appeal filed by the Revenue is therefore, liable to be dismissed
|