TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1084
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the Respondent ORDER PER COURT 1. The appellant assails the concurrent findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal in the present appeal. 2. The appellant has framed the following substantial question of law: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in holding that the price charged by the assessee in the international....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2002, whereby deduction of 5% earlier being allowed by appellate authorities has been explicitly prohibited w.e.f. 1.4.2002 and therefore, the ITAT ought not to have issued such directions to the A.O. as are in contravention of the provisions of the statute ? 3. Without prejudice to the above, whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were put forth while discarding the said two comparable instances to be considered as Benchmark. According to the learned Counsel, the Tribunal also persisted with the same error. The transaction is beyond the arm's length. As such the order deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent supports the order and submits that even if the case as put forth before the Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces. The assessee had selected one company namely Avery India Ltd. as a comparable company to benchmark its international transaction by applying TNMM as most appropriate method. Respondent has computed the profit margin of the comparable by using profit level index at 5.45%. The Assessing officer had considered the operating margin at 9.60% and addition of Rs. 58,57,133/were made to the purchase ....