9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by an order dated 11th June 2019. Based on an application made by the Revenue that the order passed by this Court came to be set aside in view of the orders passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sap Labs India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore in Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2022 along with a batch of appeals, the present appeal got listed on 6th July 2023. 2. The issue before the Apex Court was whether in every case where the Tribunal determines the Arm's Length Price, ("ALP") the same shall attain finality and the High Court is precluded from considering the determination of the ALP determined by the Tribunal, in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 ("the Act"). The Apex Court answered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for AY 2008 - 09 in the Assessee's own case, is not perverse as there is no ITAT order in existence for AY 2008-09 rejecting this comparable, as the matter was decided by the DRP in AY 2008 - 09 against whose directions the Revenue was not permitted to appeal as per then existing law. (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether by rejecting Cosmic Global Limited as a comparable case, the ITAT erred in mechanically following its decision in the case of Macquire Global Services Private Limited and BNY Mellon International Operations India Private Limited, wherein the Company had been held to be not comparable on the basis that it is outsourcing its business operation, ignoring the fact that even the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ology (P.) Ltd.1 this Court by detailed Judgment upheld the findings of the Tribunal rejecting all said four companies as comparables. In the said case, Aptara Technology (P.) Limited was engaged in similar line of business as the present Assessee. The decision of this Court in case of Aptara Technology (P.) Limited (supra) would therefore apply. 4. We may also record that in another case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune v. PTC Software (I) (P.) Ltd.2 the Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider three of the companies namely Cosmic Global Limited, Accentia Technologies Limited and M/s. Coral Hubs Limited (previously known as Vishal Information Technology Limited) under similar circumstances. 5. In view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
