THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.661 of 2014
DATED:28.11.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad.
And M/s. Tecumseh Products India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
… Appellant ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.661 of 2014
Judgment : (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 28.5.2014 on the following suggested questions of law:
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the order of the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is not perverse and correct in law in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the revised return as valid return for the assessment year 2007-2008, when the Respondent-assessee did not file revised return ?
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the suo-motu adjustments made by the Respondent-assessee, operation cost as mentioned in its order, which does not form part of audited financial statement ?
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is justified in rejecting companies on the ground of exceptionally large scale of operations and thereby ignoring the fact that high or low turnover does not influence the margins of the comparables ?
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in rejecting companies on the ground of functional difference when the tax payer has not considered the verticals and horizontals of the software sector while selecting the comparables ?
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in rejecting the companies relying on its own decision in the case of M/s. Intoto Software India Limited, in I.T.A. No.1196/Hyd/2010, wherein, the comparables Megasoft Limited and Tata Elxi Limited, were set aside for re-consideration ?
The first two questions raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue have already been decided by this Court against the Revenue, in appeal, being, I.T.T.A. No. 575 of 2014. Hence, we need not decide the same.
As far as the other three suggested questions of law are concerned, it appears that the learned Tribunal has given a fact finding after examining the comparable instances and thereafter came to the conclusion that the companies mentioned in the judgment are not comparable companies while following the earlier judgments of the learned Tribunal.
Therefore, we do not find any element of law to be decided in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 28th November, 2014 Pnb SANJAY KUMAR, J