TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent to the DRP on 17th September, 2013 while the order of the DRP was passed on 31st December, 2013. This finding of fact by the Tribunal has not been shown to be incorrect. Locational advantage - TPO and DRP had enhanced the ALP by taking into account the locational advantage of the Respondent while determining the ALP on non-related transactions by comparable entities operating in India - Held that:- The Tribunal's finding is that the comparable selected to determine the ALP were entities operating in India just as the Assessee. Thus, the Tribunal by the impugned order has held that no adjustment of ALP on account of locational advantage is called for. This, as both the comparables as well as and the Respondent, are situated in India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 10B of the Act, on the interest income derived? ( c) Whether in law and on the facts of the instant case, was the Tribunal right in holding that an adjustment ought to be made for risk adjustment when the DRP has found that the Respondent Company has not provided any facts or any material to specify as to how this risk is to be calculated? ( d) Whether in law and on the facts of the given case, was the Tribunal justified in concluding that an adjustment of the price based on location advantages is not permissible in law and in the Rules therein? 3 Re Question (a): (i) The RespondentAssessee is wholly owned subsidiary of an USA based company. The Respondent provides contract manufacture, contract research and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comparables and only appealed against exclusion of M/s. Dolphin Medical Ltd. from the list of comparables. (iv) In the above view, we note that the Tribunal's finding that M/s. Dolphin Medical Services Pvt. Ltd., is to be included as a comparable to determine the ALP of the RespondentAssessee, is a finding of fact. This finding of fact is not shown to be perverse in any manner. (v) Accordingly, question (a) as proposed, does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4 Re Question (c): (i) The grievance of the Revenue is that no details were provided by the Respondent to the DRP on account of risk adjustment as claimed by it. Thus, it is submitted that the Tribunal could not have allowed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
