2015-VIL-556-BOM-DT

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1804 OF 2013

Date: 24.11.2015

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX8

Vs

PETRO ARALDITE PVT. LTD.

Mr. Arvind Pinto for the appellant
Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. Advocate a/w Atul K. Jasani for the respondent

BENCH

M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.

JUDGMENT

2. The Revenue has urged the following questions of law for our consideration.

“(i) Whether on the facts and in law, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting MIL as a comparable on the ground that the Annual Report of MIL did not provide segmental information without appreciating that under TNMM, broad functional similarity is required to be seen more so as the assessee itself had not furnished audited segmental accounts?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in law, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting M/s. Pidilite Industries Ltd.(PIL) as a comparable on the ground of there being a merger and demerger during the year without appreciating that merger and acquisition is a normal business practice which does not affect FAR analysis and hence not relevant as PIL is a proper comparable being functionally similar to the assessee company?

(iii) Whether on the facts and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the AO / TPO to benchmark only the AE transactions without appreciating that (a) the assessee itself in its transfer pricing study report (TPSR) has chosen entity level PLI to benchmark the AE transactions (b) the assessee had itself failed to furnish audited segmental accounts and therefore, the TPO had rightly applied revised PLI at the entity level to determine the ALP?”

3. So far as the question no. (iii) is concerned, Counsel for both parties state that the issue is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the Commissioner of Income Tax8 Vs. M/s. Tara Jewels Exports Pvt. Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No. 1814 of 2013, which was dismissed on 5th October, 2015. In the above view, the issue raised in question (iii) does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.

4. The appeal is admitted on question nos. (i) and (ii).

5. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Tribunal, this would enable the Tribunal to keep the papers and proceedings relating to the present appeal available, to be produced when sought for by the Court.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.