TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judgment. 2. By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department and cross objection of the assessee as well as appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 3. This court while admitting the appeal framed following substantial question of law:- 3.1 Appeal No.58/2012 admitted on 19.7.2012, Appeal No.63/2012 admitted on 3.5.2012 & Appeal No.64/2012 admitted on 27.5.2013 "1. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in not holding that the Arms Length Price of the import of raw material and spares from the associated enterprises was to be adjusted for Rs. 1,45,52,537/- from the income of the assessee u/s 92C? 2. Whether th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for 03-04 and 04-05 were not available on the date, of the study as well as on date. As mentioned earlier, the comparable companies whose contemporary data was available have been taken in the fresh analysis as it best describes the economic scenario and identical market condition. Hence, the margin of this company is not considered for benchmarking the margins of the assessee. (2) Atul Ltd.: This company was proposed to be rejected on the ground of significant related party transactions, as the financial information would not be considering as reasonable representing financial results of the uncontrolled transactions. The assessee claimed that it had adopted the rejection criteria of filtering out companies which had related party trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nufacturing function margin:. The assessee deals in printing inks' with NIC Code 24222. However a search on CMIE (Prowess) database revealed that 2 companies had not been included in the list of comparables. While M/s Indian Toners & Developers Ltd. had been taken out by the assessee on the basis of non-comparable product', the company M/s Rainbow Ink & Varnish Manufacturing Co. Ltd. had not been identified in the T.P. Study. Accordingly, it had been proposed to include these two companies as comparables. (1) M/s Indian Toners & Developers Ltd: The assessee claimed that this company manufactures toners and developers for photocopies, laser printers and digital printers. The same was not considered by the assessee to be comparable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... segments. (2) Metrochem Industries Ltd.: It was proposed to be excluded on account of product differences. The assessee has objected to the same by claiming that this company is dealing in dyes intermediates and hence should be considered. It is observed that this company has been taken as a comparable in the manufacturing segment as well, and hence this is considered as a comparable for both segments." 5. The conclusion which has been reached by the AO ought not to have been disturbed by the tribunal and comparison which has been made and amount which has been deducted which reads as under:- "Accordingly, the Arm's Length Price of the import of raw material and spares by the assesssee from its Associated Enterprises is considered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue CIT v. Carlyle India Advisors (P.) Ltd. MANU/MH/0544/2013 : [2013] 357 ITR 584/214 Taxman 492/32 taxmann.com 23 (Bom.). 8. We note that finding of the comparable to be adopted to determine the ALP as the basis of the activity conducted by the respondent-assessee is essentially a finding of fact. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. Moreover it has not been shown us to be in any manner perverse. Thus the question as raised does not give rise to any substantial questions of law." 7.1 He has also relied upon the decision of Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities (P) Ltd. (2016) 290 CTR (Bom) 236 wherein it has been held as under:- 5. (a) We found that during the subject Assessmen....