Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (8) TMI 1461

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the respondent is duly represented by learned counsel, the caveat stands discharged. ITA 419/2024 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["Tribunal"] dated 14 December 2020 and posits the following questions of law for our consideration:- "2.1 Whether, the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. ITAT was justified in its decision in holding that AMP (advertisement, market promotion) expenditure incurred during the year by the Assessee does not constitute an 'International Transaction'? 2.2 Whether, the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. ITAT was justified in holding that the 'Brightline Test' was not mand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Hon'ble Apex Court. 2.6 Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case of the ld. ITAT was right in law in excluding OTS E Solutions Pvt. Ltd. as functionally non comparable without considering the finding of the TPO w.r.t. broad level of products similarity under TNMM after conducting a detailed FAR analysis while ITAT has failed to give detailed FAR w.r.t inclusion and exclusion of comparable? 2.7 Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the Id. ITAT was right in law in including Rendington India Pvt. Ltd. which is functionally non comparable without considering the findings of the TPO w.r.t. product similarity. ITAT has failed to give detailed FAR w.r.t. inclusion and exclusion of comparable? ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m the final list of comparables." 5. Proceeding then to examine the claim for inclusion of the Redington India Ltd., the Tribunal has come to the following conclusions:- "12.3 We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of records it can be seen that this company is engaged in distribution of IT products such as computers, printers, software storage systems and also a leading supply chain solutions provider for global brands of IT hardware and software product which appears to be similar to that of assessee functions. Therefore, we direct the TPO to look into the portfolio of this, company, and applying the filters, this comparable i.e. Redington India Limited may be....