9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude ICRA Online Ltd. from the set of comparables without appreciating that the assessee itself had selected ICRA Online Ltd as a comparable in its Transfer Pricing study? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing inclusion of Machine Tools India Ltd. as a comparable ? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on UPS at the rate of 60% without appreciating that the UPS cannot be treated as part of a computer so as to become ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal to the Tribunal. By the impuged order the Tribunal recorded the fact that ICRA Online Limited was having significant Income on account of sale of products which was not available at the time when the transfer pricing study was first carried out by the respondent-assessee. It was only on the Director's report of ICRA Online Limited dated 12th May, 2007 being available that the respondent-assessee realised that functionally ICRA Online Limited was not a comparable. Further the impugned order placed reliance upon its Special Bench decision in DCIT vs Quark Systems (P) Ltd. dated 22nd October, 2009 (ITA No. 100/Chd/2009) to hold that merely because comparable was earlier selected by the assessee it would not be estopped from contendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion on the basis of which the respondent assessee seeks to exclude ICRA Online Ltd. from the transfer pricing study is based on document / information available before 30th November, 2007. Therefore reliance upon it is perfectly valid. Thus the direction in the impugned order to the Assessing Officer to exclude ICRA Online Ltd. from the study of comparison, cannot be faulted with in the present facts. 9. Accordingly, question (a) as raised does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Therefore not entertained. 10. Regarding Question (c) : It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue raised herein stand concluded against the revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT 10 vs. M/s.Saraswat Infotech Limited (ITA (L) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
