TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1963
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. Respondent : For the Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue. ORDER 1. This Court is of the opinion that the questions with respect to rejection of the method (CUP by the revenue authorities) does not arise. 2. Learned senior counsel for the assessee had urged that the reasons given by the ITAT cannot stand scrutiny. He urged that the assessee's reliance on the CUP method as th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arise. In the present case, the CUP method was rejected as an appropriate method having regard to the fact that it unduly restricted the choices of the Revenue. The TNMM was considered to be a more appropriate method where greater choice was available. The assessee's contention in this respect that the supplies made to the Metro Rail alone ought to be considered is equally unpersuasive. The most a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eciating that the said companies did not satisfy the test of comparability as provided in Rule 10B(2) of the Rules? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in upholding the action of the TPO in deleting the comparables proposed by the appellant, viz., Braithwaite and Bharat Wagon, (without prejudice and in response to the additional comparables se....