Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2062 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTDeduction u/s 10A - deduction of expenditure incurred for ‘Export Turn Over’ - HELD THAT:- What is excluded from ‘export turnover’ must also be excluded from ‘total turnover’, since one of the components of ‘total turnover’ is export turnover. Any other interpretation would run counter to the legislativeintent and would be impermissible. As decided in HCL Technologies Ltd [2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] when the object of the formula is to arrive at the profit from export business, expe makes the formula unworkable and absurd. Hence, we are satisfied that such deduction shall be allowed from the total turnover in same proportion as well TP Adjustment - working capital adjustment - As per tribunal DRP correctly directed the A.O./TPO to work out the working capital adjustment as per the actual figure without putting any upper cap - HELD THAT:- The controversy involved herein is no more res integra in view of the decision of M/s.Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd.[2018 (6) TMI 1327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein it has been observed that unless the finding of the Tribunal is found ex facie perverse, the Appeal u/s. 260-A of the Act, is not maintainable. 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. Same yardsticks and parameters will have to be applied, even if such appeals are filed by the Assessees, because, there may be cases where the Tribunal giving its own reasons and findings has found certain comparables to be good comparables to arrive at an ‘Arm’s Length Price’ in the case of the assessees with which the assessees may not be satisfied and have filed such appeals before this Court. Therefore we clarify that mere dissatisfaction with the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not at all a sufficient reason to invoke Section 260-A of the Act before this Court.
|