The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad v. Tecumseh Products India Pvt. Ltd - 2014-LL-1128-145

Citation	2014-LL-1128-145
Appellant Name	The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad
Respondent Name	Tecumseh Products India Pvt. Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	28/11/2014
Assessment Year	2007-08
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	financial statement • revised return • comparables
Bot Summary:	In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the order of the Hon ble Tribunal 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 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 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 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 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. 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. We do not find any element of law to be decided in this appeal.

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

Metadata

Judgment