TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Abhishek Tilak ORDER P.C: This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 9th January, 2015, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 9th January, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 200910. 2 Revenue urges only the following reframed questions of law, for our consideration: "(a) Whether o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his risk is to be calculated? (d) Whether in law and on the facts of the given case, was the Tribunal justified in concluding that an adjustment of the price based on location advantages is not permissible in law and in the Rules therein?" 3 Re Question (a): (i) The RespondentAssessee is wholly owned subsidiary of an USA based company. The Respondent provides contract manufacture, contract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct that M/s. Dolphin Medical Services Ltd., is functionally rendering similar activities to that performed by RespondentAssessee inasmuch as it is in the business of clinical trial services i.e. functionally broadly similar. We also note that the impugned order of the Tribunal records the fact that this similarity is not disputed by the Revenue before it. We find that the DRP had excluded both Alp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Thus, not entertained. 4 Re Question (c): (i) The grievance of the Revenue is that no details were provided by the Respondent to the DRP on account of risk adjustment as claimed by it. Thus, it is submitted that the Tribunal could not have allowed the claim. We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal itself records the fact that the necessary material in support of its claim was given by ....