TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in upholding the order of CIT(A) directing to exclude the comparables of SIRO Clinpharm Pvt Ltd., Choksi Laboratories., M/s. Syngene International Pvt Ltd as a comparable for determining the Arm's Length Price of the international transaction of the assessee company?" 4. Respondent assessee is a company engaged in manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products. During the assessment year under consideration, the respondent had entered into number of international transactions with its Associated Enterprises ("AE" for short). Thus, leading to the issue of Arm's Length Price ('ALP' for short) of the transactions entered into by the respondent assessee with its AEs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing two reasons:- (a) It was included as comparable by the respondent itself in its transfer pricing study and therefore, bound by it; and (b) In the immediately preceding assessment years i.e assessment year 2002-03, M/s. SIRO had been included as comparable by the Tribunal by its order dated 8.3.2013. However, while including M/s. SIRO as a comparable, the Tribunal in the earlier order dated 8.3.2018 had restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to make certain adjustments on account of difference in the business model adopted by M/s. SIRO and the respondent. This inclusion not being challenged by the respondent, is not now open to challenge. 8.2 So far as the first objection is concerned, the same is not sustainable as this Court in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent is based on outsourcing activity. This order of the Tribunal dated 8.3.2013 was challenged before this Court by the Revenue being Income Tax Appeal No. 2183 of 2013 for being restored to the Assessing Officer. However, the same was dismissed by this Court on 27.6.2016. However, the order dated 8.3.2013 in respect of assessment year 2002-03 was not challenged by the respondent assessee. Thus, there is no justification for the impugned order of the Tribunal to exclude M/s. SIRO from the list of comparables. The above submission on behalf of the Revenue ignores the fact that for subject assessment year, there was a change in law in view of the decision of this Court and the Delhi High Court. In fact, the impugned order noted in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Laboratories Ltd is not a comparable to the respondent assessee for the purpose of benchmarking the ALP. Therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in Aptara Technology P Ltd (supra), the question as proposed to the extent of seeking to include M/s. Choksi Laboratories Ltd as comparable does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 10. M/s. Syngene International Pvt Ltd: 10.1 The impugned order of the Tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) excluding this entity from the list of comparable to benchmark the assessee's ALP of transactions entered into with its A.Es. The impugned order of the Tribunal records the fact that this entity is wholly owned su....