Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation and Transfer Pricing) v. Shandong Tijun Electronic Power Eng. Company Ltd.

Gujarat HC18 Oct 2019TAXAP/1298/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a transfer pricing appeal, the High Court of Gujarat dismissed the Commissioner's challenge to the Tribunal's order selecting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method over TNMM. Relying on *Same Deutz Fahr*, the Court held that determining the most appropriate method is a question of fact where no perversity was shown.

What did the court decide?

The appeal failed and was dismissed; no relief granted to the appellant.

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation and Transfer… — Income Tax | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1298 of 2018

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION AND TRANSFER PRICING)

¶6

Versus SHANDONG TIJUN ELECTRONIC POWER ENG. COMPANY LTD.

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR SN SOPARKAR SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Opponent(s) No. 1

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Date : 18/10/2019

¶12

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

¶13

1.By this appeal under section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Act”), the appellant has challenged the
order dated 13.04.2018 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
“the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 2926/Ahd/2014 by
proposing the following questions stated to be
substantial questions of law:

¶14

“(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in holding that CUP was a better method for benchmarking as against TNMM adopted by the TPO?

¶15

(b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in holding that the

¶16

Page 1 of 22

¶17

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶18

transaction of awarding of contract by Adani Power Limited and Jhajjar Power Limited to Shandong HO is a proper CUP for the transactions between Shandong HO and Shandong PE without appreciating that the nature of transaction between Shandong HO and Shandong PE was functionally different and could not be compared between APJ/JPL and Shandong HO which merely related to awarding of a contract?

¶19

(c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in holding that the comparable selected by the TPO were functionally incomparable without assigning any reason whatsoever ?”

¶20

2.The assessment year is 2010-11 and the
corresponding accounting period is the previous
year 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010. The respondent
assessee filed return of income on 15.10.2010
declaring total income of Rs.300,978,326/-. The
case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under
section 143(2) as well as notices under section
142(1) of the Act came to be issued and the
assessee company responded to the same. A draft
of the proposed order of assessment came to be
forwarded to the respondent assessee in terms of
section 144C of the Act. The assessee filed a
letter dated 24.04.2013 stating that it has
decided to prefer an appeal against the additions
proposed in the draft order. Consequently, the
Assessing Officer passed an assessment under
section 144C read with section 143(3) of the Act.

¶21

Page 2 of 22

¶22

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶23

3. The backdrop of the facts in which the
assessment order came to be passed are that
Shandong Tiejun Electronic Power Engineering
Company Ltd. is incorporated as per the laws of
the People’s Republic of China. The company is
engaged in erecting, testing, commissioning, etc.
of power plants. The company entered into
agreements with its clients, namely, Adani Power
Limited (APL) and Jhajjar Power Limited (JPL).
The respondent - assessee showed a turnover of
Rs.612,34,10,023/-, on which it had shown actual
expenditure of Rs.582,61,59,846/-, thus, showing
a profit of Rs.29,72,50,177/-. During the year
under consideration, the assessee had recognized
revenue from the projects as per Accounting
Standard-7 (AS-7). The assessee recognised
revenue as per percentage completion method on
the basis of proportion of actual cost incurred
for the project to the total estimated cost of
the contract. The assessee maintained accounts
for the income earned from execution of onshore
contracts of two projects by the Permanent
Establishment (PE) or Project Office (PO) in
India. As per Form 3CD submitted for the year
under consideration, the nature of business
activities of the PE was shown as construction,
erection,installationandcommissioning
activities. During the year under consideration,

¶24

Page 3 of 22

¶25

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶26

the assessee entered into international
transactions with its associated enterprise, that
is, Head Office (HO).

¶27

4.According to the Assessing Officer, as it is
the Head Office which enters into contracts with
the clients (APL/JPL) either subsequent to the
tendering process or on negotiated basis, the
entrepreneurial risk is taken by the Head Office
and the total contract cost for complete
execution of the power plant is fixed. It is only
afterwards that contracts for different
components or parts are executed by the Project
Office. As the Head Office and the Project Office
are associated enterprises for transfer pricing
purposes, any transaction falling under the
category of international transaction, whether
actual or not, is subject to transfer pricing
regulations. The Project Office only carries out
the work as per the understanding between the
Head Office and the client. In this case, the
assessee is the foreign enterprise and not the
Project Office. Project Office is the projection
or foot print of the foreign enterprise, income
attributable to which is taxed in the source
country. But for transfer pricing purpose, they
are treated as separate and distinct entities.
Therefore, the execution of the contract by the
Project Office, signed by the Head 0ffice, is an

¶28

Page 4 of 22

¶29

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶30

international transaction under section 92B read
with section 92F(v) of the Act.

¶31

5.Since the assessee had not submitted any
documents in relation to such transaction, a show
cause notice came to be issued to it under
section 92C(3) of the Act. In response thereto,
the profit and loss account pertaining to the
project under consideration was submitted, which
showed that receipts from operations are at
Rs.612,34,10,023/- and total expenditure is
Rs.582,61,59,846/-.

¶32

6.According to the Assessing officer, the
consideration received by the Project Office is
required to be at arm’s length. The act of
carrying out execution of the project by the
Project Office and consequently, the expenses
incurred by it, being Rs.582,61,59,846/-, is
required to be considered as international
transaction between the Head Office and the
ProjectOffice.TheAssessingOfficer,
thereafter, proceeded to determine the arm’s
length price and discussed as to which is the
most appropriate method for determining the arm’s
length price. According to the Assessing Officer,
either Cost Plus Method (CPM) or Transactional
Net Margin Method (TNMM) may be taken as the most
appropriate method in this case. Since the CPM

¶33

Page 5 of 22

¶34

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶35

involves comparison of gross profit margins,
which may be difficult to obtain in the case of
external comparable, the use of CPM as the most
appropriate method in this case came to be
rejected. Consequently, the Assessing Officer
selected TNMM as the most appropriate method. He,
accordingly, computed the arm’s length price of
the transaction and determined the income of the
assessee at Rs.69,73,91,334/-.

¶36

7.Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal
before the Commissioner (Appeals). Before the
Commissioner (Appeals), it was submitted by the
assessee that in view of the availability of
transaction of awarding of contracts by APL and
JPL, Indian parties, to Shandong HO, which is a
comparableuncontrolledtransaction,the
Assessing Officer should have selected the
Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method for
determination of arm’s length price in terms of
section 92C of the Act and rules 10B and 10C of
the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred
to as “the rules”). Relying upon certain judicial
pronouncements (which find reference in paragraph
7.2 of the order passed by the Commissioner
(Appeals)) it was contended that the CUP method
should be preferred over other methods in
determining arm's length price when comparable
uncontrolled transaction is available. It was

¶37

Page 6 of 22

¶38

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶39

contended that the transaction of awarding
contracts by APL and JPL, Indian parties to
Shandong HO, a Chinese entity, being comparable
uncontrolled transaction for benchmarking deemed
international transaction of awarding contracts
to Shandong PO by Shandong HO, a Chinese entity,
there being no difference in terms of functions
performed, assets employed and risk undertaken,
the price charged in comparable uncontrolled
transaction ought to have been treated as arm’s
length price for benchmarking deemed transaction.
It was further contended that the price at which
the contracts were awarded by APL and JPL, Indian
parties to Shandong HO, a Chinese entity, is the
same price at which the transaction price between
Shandong PO, that is the appellant (respondent
herein) in India and Shandong HO, a Chinese
entity, was agreed upon and offered to tax by the
assessee in India. It was pointed out that
Shandong HO had awarded the same scope of work to
Shandong PO, as was awarded to Shandong HO by APL
and JPL. It was also submitted that it is not the
case of the Assessing Officer that the appellant
company had offered less income in India than
what was agreed upon between Shandong HO and APL
and JPL respectively.

¶40

8. The Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the

¶41

Page 7 of 22

¶42

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶43

assessee, agreed that CUP is the most appropriate
method for determining arm’s length price in the
given set of facts in view of the comparable
uncontrolled price of APL and JPL with Shandong
HO. He further held that the transaction of APL
and JPL with Shandong HO can be treated as CUP,
being functionally comparable uncontrolled
transaction, in terms of rule 10B(2) and (3) of
the rules and more particularly, in view of the
fact that the entire income from the transaction
was offered to tax in India. The Tribunal, in the
impugned order, has agreed with the findings of
fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and
has dismissed the appeal of the revenue.

¶44

9.Mr. Varun Patel, learned senior standing
counsel for the appellant, submitted that the
order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and
illegal as the basic issue in this case is
whether the transaction between the Head Office
and its Permanent Establishment in India would be
covered by the transfer pricing provision of the
Act or not. It was submitted that the Tribunal
has turned down the contention of the assessee
that the transaction in question is not an
international transaction.

¶45

9.1 It was submitted that since during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was

¶46

Page 8 of 22

¶47

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶48

claiming that the transaction in question is not
an international transaction, it had not filed
any details whatsoever to benchmark its
transaction. It was submitted that the
international transaction in this case is the
revenue shown by the Project Office from the
above-mentioned project, which have been assigned
by its Head Office. Therefore, the receipts shown
in its accounts by the Project Office in India
need to be benchmarked. It was submitted that the
assessee did not file any details before the
Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for
benchmarking its transactions in India and for
the first time, raised a contention before the
Commissioner (Appeals) that the international
transaction can be benchmarked by comparing the
contract given by the third parties to its
Chinese HO and can be taken as uncontrolled
comparable price. It was submitted that even on
facts, both the transactions are not comparable.

¶49

9.2It was further submitted that during the

¶50

course of the assessment proceedings, the
assessee had reiterated that the transaction in
question is not an international transaction and
therefore, section 92 of the Act is not
applicable to the operations carried out by the
Project Office and consequently, the application
of any method for computation of the arm’s length

¶51

Page 9 of 22

¶52

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶53

price, does not arise. It was submitted that it
was only in the appeal proceedings that the
assessee has made an alternative plea that the
CUP method should be adopted instead of the TNMM,
therefore, the Assessing Officer did not have the
opportunity of examining such plea regarding
applicability or otherwise of the CUP Method. It
was argued that neither the Commissioner
(Appeals) nor the Tribunal have given any
quantitative or qualitative findings on the
comparables submitted by the assessee in relation
to the CUP method. It was submitted that the
assessee has also failed to submit any details
whatsoever of the comparable contracts which is a
pre-requisite for applying the CUP method. It was
emphatically argued that the assessee has also
failed to disclose the comparable instances, the
nature of services being rendered in both the
cases, the scope of services, the basis of
determination of price and whether the subject
matter of both the contracts are the same, which
is mandatory for applying the CUP method. It was
submitted that it is settled law that the onus
lies upon the assessee to bench mark the
transaction with suitable Most Appropriate
Method.

¶54

9.3It was submitted that both the Commissioner
(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have rejected

¶55

Page 10 of 22

¶56

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶57

the comparables selected by the Assessing Officer
without giving any findings as to why such
comparables are unacceptable. It was accordingly
urged that the appeal deserves consideration on
the questions as proposed or as may be formulated
by this court.

¶58

10.Opposing the appeal, Mr. S.N. Soparkar,
Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mr. B.S.
Soparkar, learned advocate, appearing on caveat
on behalf of the respondent, invited the
attention of the court to the findings recorded
by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the
Tribunal, to submit that the findings recorded by
the Tribunal are concurrent findings of fact
based upon appreciation of the material on
record. It was submitted that the findings of
fact recorded by the Tribunal have not been
challenged by the appellant on the ground that
there is any perversity in such findings.
Therefore, in the absence of any perversity being
pointed out in the findings of fact recorded by
the Tribunal on which it has based its
conclusion, no question of law can be stated to
arise out of the impugned order. In support of
such submission the learned counsel placed
reliance upon the decision of the Madras High
Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Same Deutz
Fahr India Private Limited, [2018] 405 ITR 345,

¶59

Page 11 of 22

¶60

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶61

wherein the question was whether M/s HMT Limited
which had twice the turnover of the assessee
company could be considered as a comparable, the
court held that whether M/s. HMT Limited can be a
comparable or not is a factual issue. The court
held that right to appeal is not automatic. Right
to appeal is conferred by statute. When statute
confers a limited right of appeal restricted only
to cases which involve substantial questions of
law, it is not open for the court to sit in
appeal over the factual findings arrived at by
the Appellate Tribunal. The court, accordingly,
held that the Tribunal had factually assessed the
similarities between M/s HMT Limited and the
respondent assessee, which in its considered
opinion, did not warrant interference under
section 260A of the Act. It was, accordingly,
urged that the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal being based on factual findings does not
give rise to any question of law and that the
appeal being devoid of merits, deserves to be
dismissed.

¶62

11.Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the
assessee had contended that the transaction in
question is not an international transaction and
had also raised an alternative contention that
the method adopted by the Assessing Officer for
the purpose of computation of arm’s length price

¶63

Page 12 of 22

¶64

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶65

was not the most appropriate method and that the
CUP method is more appropriate in the facts of
the present case than the TNMM method. The
Commissioner (Appeals) has not accepted the
submission of the assessee that the transaction
in question is not an international transaction,
but has held in favour of the assessee insofar as
the alternative contention regarding the CUP
method being the most appropriate method. The
assessee has not challenged the order of the
Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent he has held
against it and hence, the finding regarding the
transaction in question being an international
transaction has attained finality. In the present
appeal, the controversy is confined to the
computation of arm’s length price of the
international transaction between the respondent
assessee and its Head Office located at China.

¶66

12.Section 92C of the Act provides for
computation of arm’s length price. Sub-section
(1) thereof provides that the arm’s length price
in relation to an international transaction or
specified domestic transaction shall be
determined by any of the methods enumerated
therein, being the most appropriate method,
having regard to the nature of transaction or
class of transaction or class of associated
persons or functions performed by such persons or

¶67

Page 13 of 22

¶68

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶69

such other relevant factors as the Board may
prescribe. In all, six methods have been
enumerated thereunder wherein method (a) refers
to comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP) and
method (e) refers to transactional net margin
method (TNMM).

¶70

13.In terms of rule 10A (ab) of the rules,
“uncontrolled transaction” means a transaction
between enterprises, other than associated
enterprises, whether resident or non-resident.
Rule 10B provides for “determination of arm’s
length price under section 92C” of the Act and to
the extent the same is relevant for the present
purpose, reads thus:

¶71

“ 10B Determination of arms’length price under section 92C.- (1) For the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 92C, the arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely:-

¶72

(a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which, -

¶73

(i) the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions, is identified;

¶74

Page 14 of 22

¶75

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶76

(ii) such price is adjusted to account for differences, if any, between the international transaction or the specified domestic transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the price in the open market;

¶77

(iii) the adjusted price arrived at under sub-clause (ii) is taken to be an arm’s length price in respect of the property transferred or services provided in the international transaction or the specified domestic transaction;

¶78

(b) resale price method, xxxx

¶79

(c) cost plus method, xxxx

¶80

(d) profit split method xxxx

¶81

(e) transactional net margin method, by which,-

¶82

(i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction entered into with an associated enterprise is computed in relation to costs incurred or sales effected or assets employed or to be employed by the enterprise or having regard to any other relevant base;

¶83

(ii) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise or by an unrelated enterprise from a comparable uncontrolled transaction or a number of such transactions is computed having regard to the same base;

¶84

Page 15 of 22

¶85

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶86

(iii) the net profit margin referred to in sub-clause (ii) arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions is adjusted to take into account the differences, if any, between the international transaction or the specified domestic transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market;

¶87

(iv) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise and referred to in sub-clause (i) is established to be the same as the net profit margin referred to in sub-clause (iii);

¶88

(v) the net profit margin thus established is then taken into account to arrive at an arm's length price in relation to the international transaction or the specified domestic transaction ;

¶89

(f) any other method as provided in rule 10AB.

¶90

(2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the comparability of an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction with an uncontrolled transaction shall be judged with reference to the following, namely:-

¶91

(a) the specific characteristics of the property transferred or services provided in either transaction;

¶92

(b) the functions performed, taking into account assets employed or to be employed and the risks assumed, by the respective parties to the transactions;

¶93

(c) the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in writing) of the transactions which lay down explicitly or implicitly how the responsibilities, risks and benefits are to be divided between the

¶94

Page 16 of 22

¶95

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶96

respective parties to the transactions;

¶97

(d) conditions prevailing in the markets in which the respective parties to the transactions operate, including the geographical location and size of the markets, the laws and Government orders in force, costs of labour and capital in the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail.

¶98

(3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction if—

¶99

(i) none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions are likely to materially affect the price or cost charged or paid in, or the profit arising from, such transactions in the open market; or

¶100

(ii) reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences.

¶101

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

¶102

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.”

¶103

14.Rule 10C of the rules bears the heading “most

¶104

Page 17 of 22

¶105

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶106

appropriate method”. Sub-rule (1) thereof
provides that for the purposes of sub-section (1)
of section 92C of the Act, the most appropriate
method shall be the method which is best suited
to the facts and circumstances of each particular
international transaction or specified domestic
transaction and which provides the most reliable
measure of an arm’s length price in relation to
the international transaction or the specified
domestic transaction as the case may be. Sub-rule
(2) provides for the factors which are required
to be taken into account in selecting the most
appropriate method as specified in sub-rule (1).

¶107

15.The controversy involved in the present case
is required to be examined in the light of the
above statutory provisions. With the CUP method,
the price and conditions of the controlled
transaction between associated enterprises with
the price and conditions of the comparable
uncontrolled transaction between independent
enterprises have to be compared. If the two
pricesarethesame,the
conditions of the controlled transaction are at
arm’s length and if the two prices are different,
then the conditions of the organization's
commercial or financial relations with the
associated enterprise may not be at arm’s length.
One would then need to substitute the price in

¶108

Page 18 of 22

¶109

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶110

the controlled transaction with that of a
comparable uncontrolled transaction to ascertain
what the conditions need to look like to be at
arm’s length.

¶111

16.The Tribunal, in the impugned order has found
that the transaction of awarding contract by APL
and JPL, Indian parties, to Shandong HO, a
Chinese entity, ought to have been taken as
comparable uncontrolled transactions to benchmark
the transaction of Shandong PO. The Tribunal has
placed reliance upon the provisions of rule 10C
of the rules and in view thereof, found that
there is no difference in the terms of functions
performed, assets employed, risks undertaken, the
price charged, in comparable uncontrolled
transactions entered in the contracts between the
parties - APL and JPL to Shandong Head Office
vis-à-vis the contract awarded to Shandong
Project Office by Shandong Head Office. The
Tribunal has further noted that it is not
disputed at the end of the Revenue that the price
at which the contracts were awarded by APL and
JPL, Indian parties, to Shandong HO, Chinese
entity, is the same price at which transactions
between Shandong PO, that is, the appellant in
India and Shandong HO, the Chinese entity, had
been agreed upon. The Tribunal was of the view
that the total value of the contract awarded to

¶112

Page 19 of 22

¶113

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶114

the Chinese HO had been offered as gross revenue
by Shandong PO, that is, the foreign entity
incorporated in India and, therefore, there was
no question of any shifting of profits. The
Tribunal has further noted that for the purpose
of computing the arm’s length price, the basic
thing which is to be examined is whether the
assessee has shifted the profits to its associate
enterprises either directly or indirectly
charging less revenue or showing excess cost to
reduce the profits, but in the instant case,
where the total contract terms are similar
between Shandong HO and PO as well as between
Shandong HO and the two Indian parties, which is
the fit comparable uncontrolled transaction and
there being no variation in the rates charged as
well as other terms of the agreement, then there
remains no room for the revenue to make any
upward adjustment to make addition in the hands
of the assessee. The Tribunal, in the above facts
and circumstances, was of the considered opinion
that for the purpose of calculating arm’s length
price, CUP method should have been followed by
the Assessing Officer to determine the arm’s
length price and further held that if the CUP
method is applied, then no transfer pricing
adjustment needs to be made in the given facts
and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal,
accordingly, found no infirmity in the findings

¶115

Page 20 of 22

¶116

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶117

recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and
decided the question against the revenue.

¶118

17.In the opinion of this court, the question as
to which is the most appropriate method for
determining the arm's length price and as to
whether the transaction between APL and JPL and
Shandong Head Office is a comparable uncontrolled
transaction is basically a question of fact. From
the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) based on
the material on record, it is apparent that the
terms of functions performed, assets employed,
risk undertaken, the price charged in comparable
uncontrolled transactions entered into by virtue
of the contract between APL and JPL and Shandong
HO vis-à-vis the contract awarded to Shandong PO
by Shandong HO, are identical. It is based upon
such concurrent findings of fact recorded by it
after appreciating the material on record that
the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that
the arm’s length price of the transaction in
question is required to be computed by adopting
the CUP method. Therefore, unless there is any
perversity in the findings of fact recorded by
the Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence on
record, no question of law can be said to arise
from the impugned order. The learned senior
standing counsel for the appellant is not in a

¶119

Page 21 of 22

¶120

C/TAXAP/1298/2018 ORDER

¶121

position to point out any perversity in the
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on
record. It is not the case of the revenue that
any irrelevant material has been taken into
consideration by the Tribunal or that any
relevant material has been ignored, nor has any
material to the contrary been pointed out to the
court to dislodge the findings of fact recorded
by the Tribunal. Moreover, a perusal of the
proposed questions shows that the impugned order
has not been challenged on the ground of
perversity.

¶122

18.In the light of the above discussion, the
conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal being based
upon findings of fact recorded after appreciating
the material on record, in the absence of any
perversity being pointed out in the findings of
fact recorded by the Tribunal, no question of
law, much less, a substantial question of law,
can be stated to arise out of the impugned order,
so as to warrant interference. The appeal,
therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶123

(HARSHA DEVANI, J)

¶124

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)

¶125

PRAVIN KARUNAN

¶126

Page 22 of 22

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation and Transfer Pricing) v. Shandong Tijun Electronic Power Eng. Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation and Transfer Pricing) v. Shandong Tijun Electronic Power Eng. Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

As International Vs State of Gujarat

Green Berry Foils India Limited Vs State of Gujarat

The Commissioner, Central GST and Cx Vs M/S Devyani Processors Pvt. Ltd.

Insha Trading Company through Proprietor Mustak Jamalbhai Sheikh Vs State of Gujarat

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation and Transfer Pricing) Vs Shandong Tijun Electronic Power Eng. Company Ltd.

Chokshi Texlen Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat