In the light of the facts on record, on a consideration of the same we are of the view that the reliance placed on the data available in the public domain at the time of the assessment proceedings which was not allowed by the AO and ultimately allowed at the Appellate stage cannot be faulted with. It is not the case of the Revenue that the three comparables taken by the assessee in the TP study as comparable were not comparable companies. This aspect not having been disputed, we see no reason why the Revenue should insist upon ignoring the updated relevant data for the period under consideration. Having accepted the fact that these companies taken in the TP study were comparable there can be no right vested in the Revenue to insist upon the incomplete data available at the time of TP study and refuse to look at the updated data available for the relevant period at the assessment stage. The CIT(A) in appeal has correctly taken the updated data which stand is approved by us.
Related Posts:
- Aricent Technologies Holdings Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In terms of section 205 of the Act, the assessee/deductee cannot be called upon to pay tax, to the extent to which tax had been deducted from the payments due. Consequently, it follows that credit for such tax deducted at source, which is deducted from the account of the deductee,…
- Celltick Technologies Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Indian subsidiary of the assessee had for A.Y. 2015-16 to A.Y 2019-20 entered into an "APA‟ with the CBDT. As is discernible from the "APA‟, the functions of the subsidiary company inter alia included "marketing and sale of various software solutions" of the assessee company. As per the "APA‟…
- JDC Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) If we accept the argument of the learned DR that u/s 154 of the Act, ld. AO is empowered to deal with the escapement of income in respect of which the reasons were not recorded even after the assessment reopened under section 147 of the Act is completed, it would…
- Clearview Healthcare P. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and by applying the principles from the aforesaid decision and legislative intent behind insertion of section 56(2)(viib), I hold that addition made by AO on account of alleged excess share premium is unjustified when those very shares are sold…
- Muradul Haque vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) We find that Finance (No.2) Act has made amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Various benches of the Tribunals including the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal, have held the amendment made by Finance (No 2) Act to be curative in nature. We further finds the coordinate bench…
- Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The contention of the assessee that he has purchased the shares through banking channel and as such, when the purchase is genuine then sale cannot be questioned, is not tenable because the entire transaction of sale and purchase is to be seen in entirety in the light of the attending…
Right view of the tribunal.
Right view of the tribunal.
Right view of the tribunal.