AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion has not reached the finality?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the claim of write off of rental deposits of Rs. 20 lakhs by holding that the loss of money is in the course of business even when the ingredients of section 37(1) of the Act are not satisfied as the nature of expenditure is capital in nature?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that certain comparables are functionally different and liable to be excluded from the list of comparables by following its earlier orders which has not reached finality and even when the Transfer Pricing Officer has chosen the comparables as qualitative and quantitative filters are fully satisfied in the case of each comparables?" 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to grant Market Risk Adjustment without appreciating that risk adjustment involves two vital pre-conditions i.e., with regard to difference in risk level exist between tested party and the uncontrolled comparables whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t only unabsorbed loss allowed to be carried forward to assessment year 2010-2011, should be set-off against the taxable income, as per law. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed the assessment order dated 24.12.2014. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer dated 24.12.2014, the Revenue filed appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru in IT(TP) A No.154/Bang/2015. The assessee filed cross-objection in C.O.No.107/B/15. The Tribunal by its order dated 28.11.2016 partly allowed the Revenue's appeal directing the TPO to rework the PLI after taking into consideration finding of the Tribunal with respect to the comparable companies and affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in all other respects. The Cross-appeal of the assessee was dismissed as infructuous. The Revenue, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal suggesting the above substantial questions of law. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that the questions of law, as proposed, do not arise in this matter and this appeal does not merit admission. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... independent to software development for the client for which the expenditures were incurred outside India in foreign currency. 15. A Statute is the intention of the legislature who enacts it after having regard to various facts and circumstances. It is a cardinal principle of law that the interpretation by the Court shall be done in such a way that the intention of the legislature shall prevail and no injustice occurred with parties. The rule of harmonious construction is the thumb rule to interpretation of any statue. An interpretation which makes the enactment a consistent whole, should be the aim of the Courts and a construction which avoids inconsistency or repugnancy between the various sections or parts of the statute should be adopted. 17. The similar nature of controversy, akin this case, arose before the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012]204 Taxman 321/17/taxman.com100/349 ITR 98. The issue before the Karnataka High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that while computing relief under Section 10A of the IT Act, the amount of communication expenses should be excluded form the total turnover if the same are reduced from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2018) 94 taxmann.com 426 (Karnataka), at paragraphs 44, 45 and 54 has held as follows: "44. This court cannot be expected to undertake the exercise of comparison of the comparables itself which is essentially a fact-finding exercise. Neither the sufficient Data nor factual information's nor any technical expertise is available with this Court to undertake any such fact-finding exercise in the said appeals under Section 260-A of the Act. This Courtis only concerned with the question of law and that too a substantial one, which has a well-defined connotations as explained above and findings of facts arrived at by the Tribunal in these type of assessments like any other type of assessments in other regular assessment provisions of the Act, viz. Sections 143, 147 etc. are final and are binding on this Court. While dealing with these appeals undersection 260-A of the Act, we cannot disturb those findings of fact under Section 260-A of the Act, we cannot disturb those findings of the fact under Section 260-A of the Act, unless such findings are ex-facie perverse and unsustainable and exhibit a total non-application of mind by the Tribunal to the relevant facts of the case and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter reaches the Tribunal which also takes its own time to decide such appeals. In the course of this dispute resolution, much has already been lost in the form of time, man-hours and money, besides giving an adverse picture of the sluggish Dispute Resolution process through these channels. If appeals under Section 260-A of the Act were to be lightly entertained by High Court against the findings of the Tribunal, without putting it to a strict scrutiny of the existence of the substantial questions of law, it is likely to open the flood-gates for this litigation to spill over on the dockets of the High Courts and up to the Supreme Court, where such further delay may further cause serious damage to the demand of expeditious judicial dispensation in such cases." In view of the above, the substantial questions of law as suggested at (3) and (4) do not remain for consideration. So far as question No.2 is concerned, it is noticed that Rs. 20,00,000/- has been paid as advance for occupying additional space. The assessee claimed deduction of the said amount. It is the claim of the assessee that the advance was given to landlord for occupying additional floor space for expanding it....