9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh ORDER U/S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: By way of this miscellaneous application the assessee seeks order u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) against the tribunal's order in ITA No. 689/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2012-13 vide order dated 18.10.2017. 2. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has only pressed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds of appeal. The Applicant fears that without any specific directions, the lower authorities would not reconsider the issue of transfer pricing adjustment on account of payment of 'Corporate Fees'. This would effectively mean that the said addition on account of payment of 'Corporate Fees' is confirmed. 17. We most respectfully submit that such non-adjudication of the abovemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co. [1993] 203 ITR 497 (Bom). In the said order, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has referred to and drawn strength from the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has referred to the following from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h there may conceivably be two opinions, as has been shown in the present case. Failure by the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on the record, although it may be an error of judgment. 6. Thus from the above discussion and precedent, we find that the issue pointed out by the ld. Counsel of the assessee does not fall und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
