TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of law arising from the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 17.2.2017 for the Assessment Years 2009- 2010 and 2010-2011:- "i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not adjudicating even after recording the submission on the criteria with regard to the comparable M/s.Lubrizol? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not holding that Lubrizol was not comparable or in the alternative, should have directed the Assessing Officer to provide adjustment in respect of the criteria due to which the appellant was differentiated from Lubrizol? iii) Whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r making Zinc. Therefore, the cost of Zinc in the case of assessee is higher compared to the cost incurred by the Lubrizol towards the Zinc. In our opinion, if the details of cost of procurement of Zinc by tolling, the same by Lubrizol is available and if the AO finds that the cost price of the Zinc incurred by the Lubrizol is lesser as compared to the assessee's case, then the suitable adjustments to be made while determining the ALP. Accordingly, this issue is also remitted to the file of AO for fresh consideration. It is needless to say that opportunity of hearing to be given to assessee by AO/TPO before deciding the above issues. 6.2 Regarding transportation cost, it is submitted that the assessee incurred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the said finding of the learned Tribunal does not give rise to any substantial question of law requiring our consideration under Section 260A of the Act. A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, where one of us (Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari) was a party in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Softbrands India P. Ltd. ((2018) 406 ITR 513 (Karn.) has held by a detailed judgment that in the case of determination of Arms Length Price, unless a perversity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal is established, no substantial question of law will arise requiring interference under Section 260A of the Act. The relevant portion of the decision of the Division Bench Bench of Kar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct. Therefore what we observed above appears to us to be the sustainable view that the key to the lock for entering into the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 260-A of the Act is the existence of a substantial question of law involved in the matter. The key of ex-facie perversity of the findings of the Tribunal duly established with the relevant evidence and facts. Unless it is so, no other key or for that matter, even the in-consistent view taken by the Tribunal in different cases depending upon the relevant facts available before it cannot lead to the formation of a substantial question of law in any particular case to determine the aspects of determination of 'Arm's Length Price' as is sought to be raised befo....