Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 332 - AT - Income TaxRejection of books of accounts - estimation of income - Computation on presumptive basis of 10% U/s.44BBB(1) or alternately @10.98% under normal provisions of the Act - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2017 (9) TMI 1164 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]it is held that the action of Ld AO in rejecting books of accounts of the Appellant and estimating income is not sustainable. Further hold that the Appellant has rightly and legitimately offered income u/s 44BBB(2) of the Act. I further reject the action of Ld AO in making alternative addition u/s 44BBB(1) of the Act. Addition made by the AO by rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the income u/s 44BBB(1) of the Act as well as on the basis of comparable companies are hereby deleted. TPA - most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price and as to whether the transaction between APL and JPL and Shandong Head Office is a comparable uncontrolled transaction - HELD THAT:- From the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the material on record, it is apparent that the terms of functions performed, assets employed, risk undertaken, the price charged in comparable uncontrolled transactions entered into by virtue of the contract between APL and JPL and Shandong HO vis-à-vis the contract awarded to Shandong PO by Shandong HO, are identical. It is based upon such concurrent findings of fact recorded by it after appreciating the material on record that the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the arm’s length price of the transaction in question is required to be computed by adopting the CUP method. Therefore, unless there is any perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence on record, no question of law can be said to arise from the impugned order. The learned senior standing counsel for the appellant is not in a position to point out any perversity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record. It is not the case of the revenue that any irrelevant material has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal or that any relevant material has been ignored, nor has any material to the contrary been pointed out to the court to dislodge the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. Moreover, a perusal of the proposed questions shows that the impugned order has not been challenged on the ground of perversity. In the light of the above discussion, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal being based upon findings of fact recorded after appreciating the material on record, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue
|