TECHBOOKS ELECTRONICS SERVICES PVT. LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/343/2017HC DelhiDLHC01055695201729 May 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT erred in restricting the assessee to only providing data for the exact financial year. The proviso to Rule 10B(4) allows consideration of data from up to two prior years if it influences transfer pricing.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an ITAT order that remanded a transfer pricing matter to the Assessing Officer (AO)/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The ITAT had restricted the assessee to providing data for the exact financial year of the comparable company, Datamatics Limited.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT was correct in restricting the assessee to providing comparable company data only for the exact financial year, overlooking the proviso to Rule 10B(4) which allows for prior year data.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 343/2017

Page 1 of 4

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 7 +

ITA 343/2017

TECHBOOKS ELECTRONICS SERVICES PVT. LTD.

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Saurav Sood, Mr. Shashank Sharma and Mr. Subhashree R., Advocates

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 NEW DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

29.05.2017

CM APPL. 16663/2017 (for exemption) 1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.

CM APPL. 16664/2017 (for condonation of 40 days' delay in re-filing) 2. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. The delay in re- filing is condoned.

ITA 343/2017 3. This appeal by the Assessee under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act') is directed against an order dated 28th September 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 2375/Del/2011 for Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06.

ITA 343/2017

Page 2 of 4

4.

Notice. Mr. Asheesh Jain, learned counsel for the Revenue accepts notice.

5.

Admit.

6.

The following question of law is framed for consideration:

"Was the ITAT correct in remanding the matter to the Assessing

Officer (AO)/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for checking the veracity

of Operating Profit (OP)/Total Costs (TC) of the comparable

Datamatics Limited with the direction that only if the Assessee

succeeds in providing the relevant data of the said company for the

concerned financial year on the basis of the information available

from their annual reports, without making any calculations at its own,

should the TPO should include the said company in the list of

comparables?"

7.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

8.

In Para 5 of the impugned order the ITAT observed that Datamatics Limited drew up its accounts on the basis of the calendar year, whereas the Assessee prepared its accounts on the basis of the financial year. The ITAT observed that a valid comparison can be made only if the comparable company has also the same financial year. The ITAT further held that for making a valid comparison, "it is sine qua non that the data of the comparables must be for the same period as that of the assessee company."

ITA 343/2017

Page 3 of 4

9.

The above observation appears to be based on Rule 10 B (4) of the Income Tax Rules 1962 ('Rules') which reads as under:-

(4) The data to be used in analysing the comparability of an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction shall be the data relating to the financial year in which the international transaction has been entered into:

10.

However, the ITAT appears to have overlooked the first proviso thereto which reads thus: Provided that data relating to a period not being more than two years prior to such financial year may also be considered if such data reveals facts which could have an influence on the determination of transfer prices in relation to the transactions being compared.

11.

The Court is in the view that the ITAT could not possibly have placed a restriction on the Assessee to the effect that it had to place before the AO/TPO only "the relevant data of the said company for the concerned financial year on the basis of the information available from their annual reports, without making any calculations at its own." Such a restriction was contrary to what is envisaged in the proviso to Rule 10 B (4) of the Rules.

12.

Consequently, the question framed is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. It is clarified, for checking the veracity of the OP/TC of Datamatics Ltd. as a comparable, the AO/TPO will consider the relevant data consistent under Rule 10 B(4) of the Rules read with first proviso thereto.

ITA 343/2017

Page 4 of 4

13.

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 29, 2017 b

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →