9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r orders of even date i.e. 30th November 2018, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. Grievances raised in these appeals, which are common for both of these assessment years, are as follows: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in providing partial relief from the original transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 93,45,305 as prescribed in the order under section 92CA(3) read with section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? On comparables: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the interest rate swap of 8,336% (only the fixed component (8.336%) while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) has erred in providing partial relief (instead of full relief) by not taking into account the interest rate determined by various courts, including the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Aurionpro Solutions Limited (ITA 1869/2014), wherein the High Court approved the interest rate of Libor+200 bps as determined at arms-lenght, in the case of loans provided to assosicated enterprise? 3. The short issue requiring our adjudication, as learned representatives reasonably agree, is as to at what rate the interest-free loans granted by the assessee to its associated enterprise in Mauritius should be benchmarked as at an arm's length. This issue is no longer res integra. The issue in the appeal is squarely covered, in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of some new arguments. Given the findings of the coordinate bench-as extracted above, the reference to the fixed rate of interest and swap variable, with reference to the LIBOR, as has been done by the authorities below to go beyond LIBOR plus 300 bps, is irrelevant. There is no point in making these efforts to circumvent the conclusions arrived at by the coordinate bench, and justifying the same on the basis of a new set of arguments. As for the facets not argued nor not considered, even if any, as is laid down by the apex Court in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of UP AIR 1980 SC 1762 : [1980] 3 SCC 719 (p. 1764 of AIR 1980 SC) "Every new discovery nor argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
