2016 (4) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es the following questions of law for our consideration : (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in treating M/s. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. as a comparable ? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in excluding the case of M/s. Engineers India Ltd. from the list of comparables ? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the payment of Royalty of Rs. 4,29,03,966/by holding that any payment made with the approval of RBI has to be considered as being at Arm's Length Price ? 3. Brief Fact : (a) The respondent assessee is engaged in the busines....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and Sriram EPC to the list and benchmarked the ALP on the basis of the following six comparables as under : Sr. No. Company OP/TC% OP/Sales% 1 Tata Projects 4.98 4.74 2 Walchandnagar Inds. 11.74 10.5 3 Mcnally Bharat 11.92 10.65 4 Engineers India Ltd. 14.17 12.42 5 TRF Ltd. 20.85 17.25 6 Sriram EPC 12.69 11.26   Average 12.72 11.13 (d) On the basis of the TPO order, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order dated 11th November, 2011 determining the profit level indicator of operating profit / total cost at 12.72% making an adjustment of Rs. 6.72 crores to determine the respondent assessee's ALP. The respondent assessee fil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erroneously proceeded on the basis that M/s. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. was not engaged in execution of turnkey project business. (b) Moreover, the impugned order also records the fact that the segment level Revenue from the Engineering Segment by M/s. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. being at Rs. 74.17 crores was much more than the respondent assessee's uncontroverted filter of Rs. 25 crores for the purposes of being selected as a comparable. (c) This aforesaid finding of the Tribunal in the impugned order is a factual finding and the Revenue has not been able to show that the same is incorrect and / or perverse. (d) In the above view, the view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable view. This is so the TPO had erroneously ....