TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 677
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal raising the following two questions for our consideration : (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was in error in not appreciating the fact that the provisions of Section 92B(2) are applicable to the sale transaction between the two domestic companies since the provisions of subsection (1) and subsection (2) are independent of each other ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the sale of the imaging business from the Assessee to the Associated Enterprise of a foreign company in India was not the normal 'International Transaction' falling within the precincts of Section 92B(1); but was a transactio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be considered to be an International Transaction and Chapter X of the Act would be applicable. This on the basis that the holding companies of both the respondent assessee as well as M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. had entered into a global agreement for sale of its business. This global agreement was prior in point of time to the sale of imaging business by the respondent assessee to M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer passed a draft Assessment Order under Section 144C of the Act on the basis of the order of the TPO. 5. Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee approached the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). However, the view of the TPO was upheld by the DRP. 6. On appeal, the Tribunal on interpretation of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....control the terms arrived at between the Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. The aforesaid finding is not disputed by the Revenue before us. 9. Further, we find that the impugned order of the Tribunal rendered a finding of fact that the ALP for transfer of its imaging business as determined by the respondent assessee was reasonable is also not disputed. The impugned order notes that average gross profit was Rs. 4.49 crores and respondent assessee had worked out gross profit at Rs. 5.98 crores to work out the consideration receivable. Thus, quite reasonable. This finding of fact has also not been challenged by the Revenue. 10. We must also record the fact that the ALP was arrived at by the Transfer Pricing Offi....