AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d together and decided by this common 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y. 02-03 and accordingly the assessee had identified it as a comparable. However, the date 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his clearly chows that even the product range of this company are not comparable.. Companies added for benchmarking Manufacturing 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 developer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f non-comparable products (by the assessee). However, it was seen that this also dealing in printing inks. Hence, this is considered a Comparable under both the 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs (P.) Ltd. (supra) was the subject matter to challenge by the Revenue before this Court. This Court by an order dated 22nd February, 2013 refused to entertain the appeal of the Revenue 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 C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 23 (Bom.)) - wherein this Court refused to entertain the Revenue's appeal as is reflected in the order dated 22nd February, 2013. Thus, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal; (b) In the circumstance, the Tribunal in the impugned order adopted the same comparable it had adopted in the case of Carlyle India Advisors (P.) Ltd. (supra) for the purpose of arriving at the ALP in respect of its International Transaction; (c) Further, Mr. Kotangale, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly points out that a similar issue as arising herein, was a subject matter of consideration by this Court in Income (CIT v. General Atlantic (P.) Ltd. MANU/MH/0759/2016 : [2016] 68 taxmann.com 88 (....