TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that Alphageo (India) Ltd. is not a comparable to the assessee's Research & Technical Services business even though the assessee is carrying on the function of research and development activity in the field of agro chemical industry, while the Alpha Geo (India) Ltd. Is involved in the business of research and development of seismic data functions similar to the functions performed by the assessee herein? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that Alphageo (India) Ltd. is not a comparable to the assessee's Research & Technical Services business even though the assessee and the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the respondent assessee on 30th September, 2008 declaring total income as NIL. After adjusting the brought forward loss and the respondent assessee paid tax on book profit of Rs. 1,60,96,269/-. 5. The questions of law at (a), (b) and (c) are essentially the same viz. whether M/s. Alphageo (India) Ltd. (M/s. Alphageo) could be considered as comparable for bench marking to determine the Arms Length Price (ALP) of its services to its Associate Enterprises (AE). Thus, being considered together. 6. The case of the respondent assessee was selected for scrutiny. A reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act (Act) for determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) in case of international transact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22nd April, 2016 the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent on this issue. 9. We have heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 10. The main contention advanced by Mr. Suresh Kumar on this question is that as the respondent assessee having itself included M/s. Alphageo as one of the comparables then it cannot now argue that this entity should not have been considered as comparable. It is not the case of the Revenue before us that M/s. Alphageo is includable as comparable on merits, but only that the respondent had relied upon it as comparable in its transfer pricing study. This submission is not correct. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Suresh Kumar, sought to place before us a decision rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Banglore in the case of Basch Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Banglore (2015) 64 taxmann.com 456 where the Alphageo was held to be comparable to the assessee therein. This decision was rendered in the context of the Tribunal on facts finding that the Assessee therein and M/s. Alphageo are functionally comparable. In the present case, the Tribunal on facts found that M/s. Alphageo and the respondent are not comprable. Thus, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bosh (supra) does not assist the appellant. Therefore, questions (a), (b) and (c) do not give rise to any substantial question of law and thus they are not....