TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uded in the list of comparable. Thus, there is no merit in the first objection on behalf of the Revenue. So far as the second objection Revenue invited our attention to the fact that the Tribunal by its order dated 8.3.2013 for assessment year 2002-03 had accepted M/s. SIRO in its list of comparables to determine the ALP of the respondent. However, in view of the difference between the business model between M/s. SIRO and the respondent, the Tribunal had restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for appropriate adjustment while determining the ALP. This was so because M/s. SIRO's business model is based on inhouse activity while that of the respondent is based on outsourcing activity. This order of the Tribunal dated 8.3.2013 was chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal in excluding this entity cannot be faulted with in the absence of the Revenue showing it to be perverse. Thus, the question as proposed to the extent of seeking to include M/s. Syngene International P Ltd in the list of comparable, does not give rise to any substantial question of law. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1731 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2019 - AKIL KURESHI M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Atul Jasani for the Respondent P.C.: 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), challenges the order dated 6.11.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerned, the Transfer Pricing Officer ( TPO for short) included this as comparable to determine the ALP of the respondent's transaction with its AEs in spite of the respondent assessee's objection. Eventually, the Tribunal by the impugned order held that M/s. Syngene International Pvt Ltd is not a comparable and exclusded it from the list of comparables. 7. The Revenu's grievance is to the exclusion of the above three entities from the list of comparables to determine the ALP. We shall take up each of the entities which have been excluded as comparable for determining the ALP individually and examine the same in the context of challenge to the impugned order of the Tribunal. 8. SIRO Clinpham Pvt Ltd ( M/s. SIRO for short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f mistake or an incorrect advice does include and / or exclude a company from the list of comparables, it is not irrevocable / irreversible. Thus, if on facts, the assessee is able to establish that the company if sought to include is not comparable, it is not to be included in the list of comparable. Thus, there is no merit in the first objection on behalf of the Revenue. 8.3 So far as the second objection is concerned, Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Revenue invited our attention to the fact that the Tribunal by its order dated 8.3.2013 for assessment year 2002-03 had accepted M/s. SIRO in its list of comparables to determine the ALP of the respondent. However, in view of the difference between the business model between M/s. SIRO and the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does the activity inhouse. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal in applying the binding decision of this Court. Therefore, in view of the decisionof this Court in Aptara Technology P Ltd (supra), the question as proposed to the extent it seeks to include M/s. SIRO does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 9. M/s. Choksi Laboratories Ltd : 9.1 It is an agreed position between the parties that M/s. Choksi Laboratories Ltd has a business model which is different from the business model adopted by the respondent assessee namely it carried out clinical trial activity, itself while the respondent outsourced the same. Therefore, they are not comparable. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
