HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NOs.532 AND 563 OF 2014 DATED:6.11.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-III IT Towers, AC Guards Hyderabad Appellant And M/s. Alumeco India Extrusion Limited [Formerly known as M/s.Pennar Profiles Limited] Registered Office at Kallakal Village Toorpan Mandal, Medak District Respondents HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NOs.532 and 563 of 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon ble Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) These two appeals are sought to be preferred against common judgment and order of learned Tribunal dt.31.5.2013 in relation to assessment years 2006- 2007 and 2007-2008 on following substantial question of law: In facts and circumstances of case, whether Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in directing Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer to compute value of international transaction by using Internal Cost Plus Method under Section 92CA of Act instead of External Transaction Net Margin Method? We have heard Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for appellant, and perused judgment and order under appeal. It appears that learned Tribunal has recorded fact that when assessee has chosen Most Appropriate Method and substantiated choice in its Transfer Pricing study it is upto Transfer Pricing Officer to record and substantiate reasons as to why assessee s Most Appropriate Method was incorrect and why some other Transfer Pricing Method need to be Most Appropriate Method. Tribunal did not find any substance in any of Transfer Pricing Officer s multiple arguments for rejection of assessee s internal Cost Plus Method and adoption of external Transaction Net Margin Method. In other words, it was found by Tribunal that decision of Transfer Pricing Officer was absolutely arbitrary and irrational and hence it set aside order of Transfer Pricing Officer. We do not find any element of law for consideration in these appeals. appeals are therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 6.11.2014 bnr Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Hyderabad v. Alumeco India Extrusion Limited [Formerly known as Pennar Profiles Limited]