IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1182 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax 8, .... Appellant Mumbai. Vs. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. .... Respondent Mumbai. Mr. Arvind Pinto for Appellant. Mr. P.J. Pardiwalla, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Atul K. Jasani for Respondent. CORAM : S.V . GANGAPURWALA AND G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 7 JUNE, 2017 PER COURT : Revenue has filed present appeal against order of Tribunal. present matter pertains to Assessment Year 2008 2009. 2 Revenue has filed appeal on following grounds, stating to be substantial questions of law: Dusane 2/5 itxa 1182.2014 6.1 Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in directing AO to restrict determination of ALP to transactions with AE rather than on entire turnover of Company. 6.2 Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Hon'ble Tribunal was correct while issuing above directions without appreciating observations of DRP that there was no segmental audit of transactions of AE and non AE and therefore there was no method whereby AO could come to fair determination of ALP by only restricting to transactions with AE. 3 Mr. Pinto, learned counsel for Appellant strenuously contends that Tribunal has failed to consider that when accounts are composite one and same are not segmental, it would not be possible to consider international transaction only. According to learned counsel, entire turnover of Company was required to be considered for Dusane 3/5 itxa 1182.2014 determination of A.L.P. According to learned counsel, D.R.P. was right in observing that there was no segmental audit of transactions of AE non AE and therefore there was no method whereby Assessing Officer could come to conclusion of fair determination of ALP in restraining international transaction. learned counsel submits that same issue is under consideration of this Court and one of appeal bearing ITXA No. 1395 of 2013 has been admitted on said ground. 4 Mr. Pardiwalla, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent supports order of Tribunal and submits that this Court had occasion to consider issue involved in Income Tax Appeal No.1395 of 2013 in subsequent matters viz. Income Tax Appeal No. 1066 of 2014, Income Tax Appeal No. 1814 of 2013 and Income Tax Appeal No. 1804 of 2013. learned Senior Counsel further submits that phraseology in Section 92 is abundantly clear, arm's length has to be considered only on basis of international transaction. 5 With assistance of learned counsel for respective parties, we have considered submissions and judgment of Tribunal. Tribunal in para 7 of it's order has observed as under. Dusane 4/5 itxa 1182.2014 7 We have heard both parties and their contention have carefully been considered. So far it relates to grievance of assessee that TP adjustment can only be applied to international transactions of assessee with AE and it cannot be applied at entity level, issue is found to be covered by aforementioned decision of Tribunal in case of Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, we hold that determination of arms length price should be restricted only to international transaction of assessee with its AE. It was pointed out that figures are available with AO, details of which has also been filed before us at page 170 of paper book. Therefore, we direct AO to take only international transactions of assessee with its AE for purpose of determining arms length price. We direct accordingly. 6 Tribunal has held that figures are available with Assessing Officer, details of which has also been filed with Tribunal at page 170 of paper book. It would be clear that details of international transaction are specifically Dusane 5/5 itxa 1182.2014 made available and therefore apprehension of department as such is misplaced. 7 Moreover this Court in Income Tax Appeal NO. 362 of 2014 has dealt with aspect of absence of segmental accounts. While delivering order in aforesaid Appeal No. 362 of 2014, Court has also considered order in Income Tax Appeal No. 1395 of 2013. 8 Considering provisions of Section 92 of Income Tax Act, so also reasoning adopted by Tribunal suggesting that separate figures of international transaction are available, so also order referred above. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. As such appeal is dismissed with no costs. ( G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) TheCommissionerofIncome-tax-8, Mumbai v. PhoenixMecano(India)Pvt.Ltd