Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S Vaibhav Global Limited Earlier ... on 27 May, 2019

Bench: Chief Justice, G R Moolchandani

   HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
               BENCH AT JAIPUR

              D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 281/2018

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur-II, Jaipur (Raj)
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                        Versus
M/s Vaibhav Global Limited Earlier Known As Vaibhav
Gems Ltd, K-6-B Fateh Tiba Adarsh Nagar Jaipur
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI Order 27/05/2019 The revenue in its appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act urges two questions of law and contends that the ITAT fell into error. Firstly it is urged that the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO's) order directing adjustment of over ₹ 82 crore towards interest payable but not recovered, was erroneously modified so far as rate is concerned. The second question urged is that the reduction of the corporate guarantee fee to 0.53% was not justified.
This court notices that ALP determination which led to adjustments on both counts, were the subject matter of previous appeal decided in its favour by the ITAT. Further appeal to this court by the revenue was unsuccessful. Moreover the reduction of ALP determination on interest, in this court's opinion, (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:06:41 AM) (2 of 2) [ITA-281/2018] by applying LIBOR rates, is reasonable because the amounts were used by the AE Abroad and the yardstick, therefore, was naturally as per LIBOR rates. Likewise, as far as the ALP determination of the cooperate guarantee fee, mere reduction per se does not result in a question of law, as is urged in this appeal.
For the above reason, this court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal; it is accordingly dismissed.
(G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ db/ashu /24 (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:06:41 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)