The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-7 v. Merck Ltd - 2019-LL-0916-168

Citation	2019-LL-0916-168
Appellant Name	The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-7
Respondent Name	Merck Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	16/09/2019
Assessment Year	2009-10
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	international transaction • technical fee
Bot Summary:	This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenges the order dated 31st March, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The impugned order dated 31st March, 2016 is common order for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The Revenue urges only the following re-framed questions of law for our consideration :- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made by TPO / AO by applying CUP to arrive at ALP in respect 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 11:28:58 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 744-17-ITXA-chamber. The Revenue had also filed an appeal on the above two questions from the common impugned order dated 31st March, 2016 relating to Assessment Year 2010-11 being Income Tax Appeal No,. 726 of 2017. We have today dismissed both the above questions of law raised by the Revenue in Income Tax Appeal No. 726 of 2017. It is an agreed position between the parties that for the reasons indicated in our order passed today in Income Tax Appeal No. 726 of 2017, these two questions would not give rise to any substantial question of law. Accordingly, both these questions are not entertained.

Uday S. Jagtap 744-17-ITXA-chamber.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 744 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 .. Appellant v/s. M/s. Merck Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant Mrs. A. Vissanji a/w Mr. S.J. Mehta for respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & NITIN JAMDAR, J.J. DATED : 16 th SEPTEMBER, 2019 P.C. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges order dated 31st March, 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). impugned order dated 31st March, 2016 is common order for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11. This appeal relates to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Revenue urges only following re-framed questions of law for our consideration :- (a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was right in deleting addition made by TPO / AO by applying CUP to arrive at ALP in respect 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 11:28:58 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 744-17-ITXA-chamber.doc of Bisoprolol Fumerate without giving adjustment for quality as claimed by assessee? (b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal erred in law to delete adjustment relying upon entity level margins despite fact that payment of technical fees is distinct international transaction which has to be separately benchmarked? 3. Revenue had also filed appeal on above two questions from common impugned order dated 31st March, 2016 relating to Assessment Year 2010-11 being Income Tax Appeal No,. 726 of 2017. We have today dismissed both above questions of law raised by Revenue in Income Tax Appeal No. 726 of 2017. 4. It is agreed position between parties that for reasons indicated in our order passed today in Income Tax Appeal No. 726 of 2017, these two questions would not give rise to any substantial question of law. 5. Accordingly, both these questions are not entertained. appeal is dismissed. (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 11:28:58 ::: Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-7 v. Merck Ltd

Metadata

Judgment