9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration : (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in treating M/s. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. as a comparable ? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in excluding the case of M/s. Engineers India Ltd. from the list of comparables ? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the payment of Royalty of Rs. 4,29,03,966/by holding that any payment made with the approval of RBI has to be considered as being at Arm's Length Price ? 3. Brief Fact : (a) The respondent assessee is engaged in the business of providing turnkey services for design, manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ables as under : Sr. No. Company OP/TC% OP/Sales% 1 Tata Projects 4.98 4.74 2 Walchandnagar Inds. 11.74 10.5 3 Mcnally Bharat 11.92 10.65 4 Engineers India Ltd. 14.17 12.42 5 TRF Ltd. 20.85 17.25 6 Sriram EPC 12.69 11.26 Average 12.72 11.13 (d) On the basis of the TPO order, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order dated 11th November, 2011 determining the profit level indicator of operating profit / total cost at 12.72% making an adjustment of Rs. 6.72 crores to determine the respondent assessee's ALP. The respondent assessee filed its objections to the draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP by its directions dated 30th July, 2012 reduced the adjust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order also records the fact that the segment level Revenue from the Engineering Segment by M/s. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. being at Rs. 74.17 crores was much more than the respondent assessee's uncontroverted filter of Rs. 25 crores for the purposes of being selected as a comparable. (c) This aforesaid finding of the Tribunal in the impugned order is a factual finding and the Revenue has not been able to show that the same is incorrect and / or perverse. (d) In the above view, the view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable view. This is so the TPO had erroneously proceeded on the basis that M/s. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. were not engaged in the business of executing turnkey projects. (e) Thus, question (a) as framed does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be considered to be comparable. (b) We find that the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned order is a reasonable and possible view. Nothing has been shown which would justify our interference in the impugned order of the Tribunal excluding Engineers India Ltd. from the list of comparables. (c) In the above view, question (b) as framed also does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 6. The appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law at question no. (c). 7. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Tribunal. This would enable the Tribunal to keep the papers and proceedings relating to the present appeal available, to be produced when sought for by the Court. 8. To be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
