Bombay High Court
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 vs Alstom Projects India Limited on 26 February, 2019
Author: M.S.Sanklecha
Bench: Akil Kureshi, M.S.Sanklecha
itxa-1739-1768-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1739 OF 2016
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1768 OF 2016
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 .. Appellant.
v/s.
ALSTOM Projects India Ltd., .. Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant in both the Appeals.
Mr. Hasmukh Ravaria i/b. DMD Advocates, for the Respondent in both the
Appeals.
CORAM: AKIL KURESHI &
M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : 26th FEBRUARY, 2019.
P.C:-
These two Appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenge the common order dated 28 th October, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order dated 28th October, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2009-10. Thus, the two appeal.
2 Revenue urges the following identical questions of law in both appeals, for our consideration:
"(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the TPO has applied the adjustment to the non-AE (Associated Enterprises) transactions, especially in view of the fact that, in the absence of actual segmental accounts being maintained on S.R.JOSHI 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 18:09:17 ::: itxa-1739-1768-2016 regular basis by the assesseee, the TPO was well within his jurisdiction to attribute the adjustment at entity level?
(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by applying the provisions of transfer pricing adjustments?
(c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in applying the safe- harbour margin as prescribed in the proviso to section 92(C) (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the fact that the very basis of adjustment for extending the safe-harbour was worked out incorrectly?"
3 It is an agreed position between the parties that, the facts and law applicable in respect of both the Assessment Years is identical. Therefore, we take up Appeal No. 1768 of 2016 relating to Assessment Year 2007-08 as the lead case and our conclusion herein will equally apply to Appeal No. 1739 of 2016 relating to Assessment Year 209-10.
4 Re. Question (a):-
(i) We note that the impugned order of the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue on this issue placed reliance upon the decision of its co-ordinate bench in respect of same Respondent- Assessee for the Assessment Year 2006-07.
(ii) Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that being aggrieved with the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2006-07, the Revenue had filed an appeal to this Court being Income Tax Appeal No. 362 of 2014 (CIT v/s. ALSTOM Projects India Ltd.,). The above appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on 14th September, 2016 with reasons.
S.R.JOSHI 2 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 18:09:17 :::
itxa-1739-1768-2016
(iii) Therefore, for the reasons indicated in our order dated 14 th
September, 2016, in the above Income Tax Appeal No.362 of 2014 (supra), this question does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.
5 Question (b) and (c):-
These questions are consequent to question (a) above. However, as question (a) does not give rise to any substantial question of law, occasion to examine questions (b) & (c) does not arise. Thus, not entertained.
6 Accordingly, both the Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)
S.R.JOSHI 3 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 18:09:17 :::