Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-8 v. Sojitz India Private Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-0904]
| Citation | 2017-LL-0904 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-8 |
| Respondent Name | Sojitz India Private Ltd. |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 04/09/2017 |
| Assessment Year | 2006-07 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | dispute resolution panel • memorandum of appeal • transfer pricing • question of law |
| Bot Summary: | A perusal of the impugned order of the ITAT reveals that the ITAT gave detailed reasons in support of its conclusions. Learned counsel for the Revenue has urged that the reasons given by ITAT are incomplete inasmuch as out of the several grounds in support of the conclusions reached by the Dispute Resolution Panel, the ITAT has discussed only one ground. ITA No.742/2017 Page 1 of 2 It is accordingly submitted that the conclusions of the ITAT in respect of each of the comparables are perverse. This Court finds that neither in the questions of law as urged by the Revenue nor in the grounds in the memorandum of Appeal is there a specific plea that the conclusions of the ITAT are perverse. It has to be supported by a proper pleading which again has to be on the basis of a detailed study of the impugned order of the ITAT pointing out to the High Court in what manner the ITAT s conclusions can be said to be perverse. Incidentally, even the word perversity has not been used anywhere in the questions of law or in the grounds urged before the Court. If there has to be a substantial question of law framed on such an issue, the Revenue should come up with a proper plea based on a detailed study of the impugned order of the ITAT. This Court is therefore not persuaded in the present case to hold that any substantial question of law has arisen for consideration from the impugned order of the ITAT. 6. |