Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2018 (7) TMI 52 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Appeals under s.260-A limited to ex facie perverse findings; mere dissatisfaction with ALP or comparables not enough The HC held that appellate review under s.260-A is not available merely because the assessee is dissatisfied with the Tribunal's factual findings on ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Appeals under s.260-A limited to ex facie perverse findings; mere dissatisfaction with ALP or comparables not enough

                          The HC held that appellate review under s.260-A is not available merely because the assessee is dissatisfied with the Tribunal's factual findings on comparability and ALP; such appeals are maintainable only where the Tribunal's findings are ex facie perverse. Prior HC precedent removes the controversy from being res integra. Consequently, the Court refused to entertain the revenue's challenge to the Tribunal's selection of comparables and ALP adjustments.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Exclusion of comparables in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP).
                          2. Applicability of turnover filter in selecting comparables.
                          3. Determination of substantial questions of law under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Exclusion of Comparables in Determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP):
                          The primary issue in this case was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was correct in excluding certain companies, namely M/s. Universal Print Systems Ltd, Informed Technologies India Ltd, Infosys BPO Ltd, M/s. Microgenetics Systems Ltd, TCS E-Serve Ltd, and BNR Udyog Ltd, from the list of comparables for determining the ALP. The Tribunal found that the turnover of these companies was significantly higher than that of the assessee, making them incomparable. The Tribunal relied on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court's judgment in M/s. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd., which held that companies with high turnovers cannot be compared with those with significantly lower turnovers. The Tribunal also referenced similar decisions by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and its own consistent view in previous cases, establishing that companies with turnovers more than ten times higher or lower than the assessee's should be excluded.

                          2. Applicability of Turnover Filter in Selecting Comparables:
                          The Tribunal applied a turnover filter to determine comparability, stating that companies with turnovers more than ten times higher or lower than the assessee's should be excluded. The Tribunal's decision was based on the assessee's turnover of Rs. 71.37 crores, leading to the exclusion of companies with turnovers less than Rs. 7.1 crores and more than Rs. 713 crores. This approach was consistent with previous Tribunal decisions and was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, which found no infirmity in the Tribunal's application of the turnover filter.

                          3. Determination of Substantial Questions of Law under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act:
                          The High Court observed that the controversy was no longer res integra, referencing its own decision in I.T.A. Nos. 536/2015 and 537/2015. The Court emphasized that unless the Tribunal's findings were ex facie perverse, an appeal under Section 260-A was not maintainable. The Court elaborated on the scheme of assessment under Chapter X related to Transfer Pricing, highlighting the roles of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The Court stressed that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding body, and its decisions on factual matters, such as the selection of comparables, are binding unless shown to be perverse. The Court cited several precedents from different High Courts, including Madras, Delhi, and Bombay, which held that factual determinations by the Tribunal do not give rise to substantial questions of law unless there is a clear perversity in the findings.

                          Conclusion:
                          The High Court concluded that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law, as the Tribunal's findings were based on a thorough analysis of facts and consistent application of legal principles. The Court dismissed the appeal, reiterating the need for finality in the Tribunal's factual determinations and emphasizing that mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. The Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to established legal standards and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found