TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned therefrom cannot be a bench-marked or equated with the Respondent- Company. Shri Jain, learned Counsel has rightly relied upon the Judgment reported in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd. (2013 (7) TMI 696 - DELHI HIGH COURT ). Learned Counsel has also brought to our notice the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal whilst examining similar circumstances for the assessment year 2005-06. He has taken us through the findings therein to point out that the conclusions arrived at are based on a comparison that the condition in any uncontrolled transaction between an independent enterprises for the purpose of such comparison, economically relevant characteristics must be sufficiently compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its group companies abroad and that the Respondent is the subsidiary to Pentair INC, USA and is involved in the same business. The said Respondent-Company has a unit at Verna Industrial Estate where the said manufacturing activity is taking place. It is further their case that the Respondent-Assess has filed returns of Income on 30.10.2007 disclosing total income of ₹ 5,28,09,795/- on which total tax was ₹ 1,81,13,280/-. An Order under Section 92CA was passed on 27.10.2010 by the TPO and the AO on 21.12.2010 added an amount of ₹ 1,68,60,877/- in the Order passed under Section 143 (3) of the said Act. It is further the contention of the Appellant that being aggrieved by the said Order, the Respondent-Assessee preferred an A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Company and, as such, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record to come to any concurrent finding. Learned Counsel further submits that these concurrent findings of facts based on the material on record cannot be reappreciated by this Court in the present Appeal as there is no substantial question of law which arise therein. Learned Counsel further pointed out that to answer the said two substantial questions of law, this Court would have to re-appreciate the material on record which is not at all permissible. Learned Counsel further submits that the bifurcation intended to be affected by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant was not even raised before the Tribunal and, consequently, the above Appeal deserves to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company out of the comparables. The turnover reported in the case of Wipro Ltd. Is ₹ 939.78 crores while in the case of the Asseessee the turnover is around ₹ 11 crores. Therefore, on the basis of the turnover filter itself this company cannot be regarded to be comparable to the Asseessee company and accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of CIT(A) while he excluded this company on the turnover criteria following the decision of this tribunal in : Sony India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 114 ITD 448 Delhi, E-Gain Communication, 2008 TIOL 282 ITAT (Pune) Deloittee Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1082/Hyd/2010 Genisys Integrating System (India)(P.) Ltd. vs DCIT,, 53 Sot 159 (Bang) 6. The said f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t earned therefrom cannot be a bench-marked or equated with the Respondent- Company. 9. Shri Jain, learned Counsel has rightly relied upon the Judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in (2013) 36 taxmann.com 289(Delhi) in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd. Learned Counsel has also brought to our notice the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal whilst examining similar circumstances for the assessment year 2005-06. He has taken us through the findings therein to point out that the conclusions arrived at are based on a comparison that the condition in any uncontrolled transaction between an independent enterprises for the purpose of such comparison, economically relevant characteristics mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
