2014 (10) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 9th October 2006. Income Tax Appeal No.6873/Mum/2006 was an Appeal of the Respondent - Assessee. Both the Appeals were decided by a common order on 5th January 2011. Both the Appeals were partly allowed. 3. Paragraph 8 of the order dated 5th January 2011 reads as under :- "8. The last ground is against the reduction of 5 % arm's length price in view of proviso to section 92C(2). Here also, the learned A.R. Candidly accepted that the Tribunal has decided this issue against the assessee in the preceding year. Respectfully following the Tribunal on the same issue in assessee's own case, we set aside the impugned order on this score. This ground is allowed." 4. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of law is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing reduction of 5 % of arm's length price in the international transaction under section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 8. Upon perusal of the order passed in Income Tax appeal No.3073/Mum/2006 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2002-03, copy of which has been tendered before us and it has been passed on 14th May 2010 and equally another order of the Tribunal bearing I.T.A. No.3342/Mum/2006 for the same Assessment Year in the Revenue's Appeal, passed on 27th January 2010, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal's order impugned in this Appeal has resulted in unnecessary confusion and chaos. The Tribunal ought to be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erve in this order as to which of the orders, the Tribunal had in mind. The Revenue's Advocate stated that it had in mind and intended to rely on a copy of the order passed in the case of the Assessee. Whether it had in mind reliance on the order dated 27th January 2010 or 14th May 2010 is therefore not clear at all. With great efforts, both the learned counsel could not point out to us as to what the Tribunal thought fit to correct in the original order by the order passed on Miscellaneous Application. 11. As a result of the above discussion and on this short ground alone, we quash and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal in relation to the claim of reduction of 5 % of arm's length price of international transaction in vie....