COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION AND TRANSFER PRICING) vs. SHANDONG TIJUN ELECTRONIC POWER ENG. COMPANY LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1299/2018HC GujaratGJHC24060883201818 October 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, in light of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent assessee, quashed and set aside the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 20 of its order dated 13.04.2018. The Tribunal's direction to the Assessing Officer to verify whether a reference was made to the TPO for determining the arm's length price of international transactions between the assessee and its Head Office was thus nullified. The appeal filed by the revenue was allowed to this extent. The ratio decidendi is that if the assessee concedes to the setting aside of a particular direction by the Tribunal, the High Court will accept that concession and allow the appeal on that limited point. No other issues were decided.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation and Transfer Pricing) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had set aside the order of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify whether a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the arm's length price of international transactions between the assessee, Shandong Tijun Electronic Power Eng. Company Ltd., and its Head Office. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal is before the High Court of Gujarat.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify as to whether the reference was made to the TPO by the Assessing Officer for determination of the arm's length price of the international transaction? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The respondent assessee has no objection if this part of the order of the Tribunal is set aside. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/1299/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1299 of 2018 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION AND TRANSFER PRICING) Versus SHANDONG TIJUN ELECTRONIC POWER ENG. COMPANY LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

Date : 18/10/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard   Mr.   Varun   Patel,   learned   senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.N. Soparkar, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mr.   B.S.   Soparkar,   learned   advocate   for   the respondent. 2. ADMIT. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of   the   case,   the   Income   Tax   Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order   of   the   Assessing   Officer   with   a direction   to   verify   as   to   whether   the reference   was   made   to   the   TPO   by   the Assessing   Officer   for   determination   of   the Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/1299/2018 ORDER arm’s   length   price   of   the   international transaction? 3. The above question arises out of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph­20 of its order, whereby the Tribunal was of the view that the particular issue is required to be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify whether the reference was made to the TPO by the Assessing   Officer   for   determining   the   arm’s length   price   between   the   assessee   company   with its HO. 4. Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned counsel, submitted that the respondent assessee has no objection if this part of the order of the Tribunal  is set aside. 5. In  the  light   of the  statement  made  by  the learned counsel for the respondent, the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph­20 of the impugned   order   dated   13.04.2018   are   hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) PRAVIN KARUNAN Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →