TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g a value of Rs. 15.00 Crores, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer, hereinafter referred to as the TPO . 4. The international transactions entered by the respondent assessee with its Associated Enterprises during the relevant previous year were as under: Name of the Associate Details of transaction Amount of transaction (in Rs.) Method adopted Saipem S.A. France, Saipem, Sp.A.Italy, Global Petro Projects Services AG, Switzerland, Saipem Singapaore Pte, Ltd, Singapore Export of engineering services 122,95,40,811 TNMM Saipem, Sp. A. Italy, Saipem S.A. France, Saipem Singapore Pte, Ltd, Singapore, Saipem Asia SDN BHD, Malaysia Reimbursement of expenses 9,59,24,875 -- Saipem S.A. France, Saipem, Sp. A. Italy, Global Petro projects Services AG, Switzerland, Saipem Singapore Pte, Ltd, Singapore and other Recovery of expenses 16,93,25,014/- -- Total 149,47,90,703 5. For its transfer pricing study, the respondent assessee had selected the Transactional Net Margin Method. The comparables selected by the respondent assessee were M/s.M.N.Dastur & Company (P) Limited; M/s.Stewarts and Lloyds India Limited and M/s.Toyo Engineering Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lysis perfect tallying of functional profile was not necessary. According to him, functional profile of both assessee as well as M/s.Mahindra Consulting Engineers Ltd were similar, since both were doing engineering consultancy. Taking us through the profiles of both the companies ld. Departmental Representative submitted that there was little that could differentiate these two Viz-z-viz M/s.Stewarts & Lloyds Ltd., Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that each assessment year was different. Just because the said company was considered to be good comparable in earlier years would not make it a good comparable for the subsequent year. According to him, assessee could not show that in the earlier years M/s.Stewarts & Lloyds Ltd had any material cost similar to what was incurred by it during the relevant previous year. As for the pleading of the ld. Authorised Representative that two companies namely M/s.Desein Private Ltd & M/s.Blue Star Design & Engineering Ltd, also needed to be considered, Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee could not show similarity in the functional profile of these companies with that of assessee. ........ 17. Coming to the last limb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal before the date of establishment of the National Tax Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or an Assessee aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this sub-section shall be- (a) filed within one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Assessee or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. (b) [***]; (c) in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved. (2A) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within that period. (3) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (4) The appeal s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... something in contradistinction with technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of substantial question of law by suffixing the words of general importance as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta [(1927-28) 55 IA 235 : AIR 1928 PC 172] the phrase substantial question of law as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case. In Sir Chunilal case [1962 Supp (3) SCR 549 : AIR 1962 SC 1314] the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju [AIR 1951 Mad 969 : (1951) 2 MLJ 222 (FB)] : (Sir Chu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case or not, the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis. (See Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179] .) 24.The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant for this case may be summarised thus : (i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. (ii) The High C....