Date Of Judgment 12-07-2018, Ita v. M/S. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF JULY 2O18| PRESENT THR HON’BLEK DR.JUSTICE VINBBT KOTHARI ANT) THR HON’BLE MRS..JUSTICK S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.20/2014 BETWEEN : 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT|A} C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. «|THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-11]1] RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001.. APPELLANTS| (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/s. CURAM SOFTWAREINTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,No.150/1, AL HABEEB> INFANTRY ROAD.BANGALORE -560001. _. RESPONDENT. (BY Mrs. D.SUJATHA, ADV. FOR SRI NAGESWAR RAO, ADV.) THIS INCOMB TAX APPBAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION|260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER|DATED 31.07.2013 PASSED IN ITA. No.1280/BANG/2012, FOR:THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, ANNEXURE-D, PRAYING TO:1]. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 2/21 STATED ABOVE: 2]. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE.ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE IN ITA No.1280/BANG/2012 DATED 31.07.2013,ANNBXURE-D AND CONFIRM THR ORDER OF THR APPELLATE|COMMISSIONBR CONFIRMING THR ORDEBR PASSBKD BY THINCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11]1], BANGALORE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS|DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JU DBiGMENT Mr. K.V.Aravind,Adv. for Appellants — Revenue.Mrs. D.Sujatha,Adv. tor | Mr. Nageswar Rao,Adv. for Respondent — Assessee. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue purportedlyraising substantial questions of law arising from theOrder of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BangaloreBench ‘B’, Bangalore, inITA No.1280/Bang/2012dated|01.07.2013, relating to the Assessment Year2008-09. 2.Theappealhas|beenadmitted|OTL09.06.2015.TO consider.thefollowingsubstantialquestions of law: “1.WhetherOF|the factsandin|the circumstances and in law the Tribunal was right Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 3/21 in Super imposing the decisions of the otherbenches and the decision of the ITAT whilerejecting the comparables |(t) M/s. Celestial BioLabs (tt) KALS Information Systems Limited (ii)M/s. Infosys Technologies Ltd, (tv) M/s. Wipro Ltdand (v) Tata Elxsi Ltd.,/ without appreciating thefact that selection of comparables in a casedepends on assessee specific FAR analysis andrecorded a perverse finding? D2 WhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal wascorrect in directing the transfer pricing officer to'provide the information obtained under section133/6] of the Act in respect of the comparability ofM/s. Avant Cimcon Technologies Ltd., withouttaking into consideration that the material reliedon by the transfer pricing officer was madeavailable to the assessee and opportunity ofhearing was also provided before the same wasutilized in computing the arms length price andrecorded perverse finding?| 3.|WhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal wascorrect in holding that Infosys technology Ltd., isfunctional dissimilar to the assessee, withoutappreciating that the comparable is a product Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 4/21 developer and therefore is not functionallydifferentfromtheaASSCSSCEandrecordedperverse finding? 4 |WhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case and in law the Tribunalwas correct in rejecting Tata Elxsi Ltd., as acomparable by placing reliance on the order in thecase of the other assessee passed by the MumbatITAT without taking into consideration the findingrecorded by the Transfer Pricing Officer forselecting as a comparable as the comparablecompany1S inthebusinessofsoftwaredevelopment and satisfies all the filters andrecorded a perverse finding? Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 4/21 developer and therefore is not functionallydifferentfromtheaASSCSSCEandrecordedperverse finding? 4 |WhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case and in law the Tribunalwas correct in rejecting Tata Elxsi Ltd., as acomparable by placing reliance on the order in thecase of the other assessee passed by the MumbatITAT without taking into consideration the findingrecorded by the Transfer Pricing Officer forselecting as a comparable as the comparablecompany1S inthebusinessofsoftwaredevelopment and satisfies all the filters andrecorded a perverse finding? 5.|WhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case and in law the Tribunalwas correct in directing transfer pricing officer tomake the computation of the related partytransactioninrespectofKPITCummins|INfosystems Ltd., on the stand-alone basis todecide the comparability, without appreciating thefactthatthesegmentalfinancialsofthe comparable were adopted for the purposes ofcomparabilityunderTNMMandrecordedperverse finding? Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 5/21 6. WhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal wascorrect in holding that the foreign exchangeloss/gain attributable as operative activitieswithout appreciating that the foreign exchangeloss/gain a derived from foreign exchangeloss/gain and not from the operating expenditureand the same cannot be considered as operatingincome to compute the arms length price andrecorded perverse finding?| 7 |WhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wascorrect in remanding the issue of market riskadjustment to the file of the transfer pricing officerto identify the risks to bring it at par with thecomparables and make required adjustments tothe profit margin without pointing out the risk incomparablesandwithoutappreciatingthattransfer pricing regulations in India does notprovide for assumptions in respect of adjustmentsand recorded perverse finding?| 5.|WhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case and in law the TribunalWascorrectin|directingexclusion.oftelecommunication expenses and expenditureincurred in foreign currency from export turnover Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 6/21 and total turnover, when the provision does notrefer to exclusion of the expenditure reduced fromexport turnover to reduce the same from totalturnoverr” Regarding Substantial Question No.8: 3.The issue is covered by the decision of theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofCommissioner ofIncome-tax, Central -— III vs. HCL Technologies Ltd.,[2018] 93 Taxmann.com 33(SC). 4The relevant portion of the judgment of theHon'blesupremeCourt1nthe.CaSE€ot HCLTechnologies Ltd. (supra),is quoted below for readyreference:-. “17. The simular nature of controversy, akin|this case, arose before the Karnataka High CourtinCIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 204 Taxman|3S21/17/taxman.com 100/349 ITR 98. The issuebefore the Karnataka High Court was whetherthe Tribunal was correct in holding that whilecomputing relief under Section IOA of the IT Act,the amount of communication expenses should beexcluded from the total turnover tf the same are. Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 7/21 4The relevant portion of the judgment of theHon'blesupremeCourt1nthe.CaSE€ot HCLTechnologies Ltd. (supra),is quoted below for readyreference:-. “17. The simular nature of controversy, akin|this case, arose before the Karnataka High CourtinCIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 204 Taxman|3S21/17/taxman.com 100/349 ITR 98. The issuebefore the Karnataka High Court was whetherthe Tribunal was correct in holding that whilecomputing relief under Section IOA of the IT Act,the amount of communication expenses should beexcluded from the total turnover tf the same are. Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 7/21 reduced from the export turnoverP While givingthe answer to the issue, the High Court, inter-alia,held that when a particular word is not definedby the legislature and an ordinary meaning 1s tobe attributed to it, the said ordinary meaning is tobe in conformity with the context in which it isused. Hence, what is excluded from ‘exportturnover’ must also be excluded from ‘totalturnover’, since one of the components of ‘totalturnover’1Sexportturnover.Anyotherinterpretation would run counter to the legislativeintent and would be impermissible. | LSE, XXXXXX 19. In the instant case, if the deductions on|freight,telecommunicationand|insuranceattributable to the delivery of computer softwareunder Section 10A of the IT Act are allowed onlyin Export Turnover but not from the TotalTurnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent,unlawful, meaningless and illogical result whichwould cause grave injustice to the Respondentwhich could have never been the intention of thelegislature. 20. Even in common parlance, when theobject of the formula ts to arrive at the profit from Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 8/21 export business, expenses excluded from exportturnover have to be excluded from total turnoveralso. Otherwise, any other interpretation makesthe formula unworkable and absurd. Hence, weare satisfied that such deduction shall be allowedfrom the total turnover in same proportion aswell”. 5.The learned Tribunal, after discussing therival contentions of both the Appellants-Revenue andRespondent-Assessee, has returned the findings as under: Regarding Substantial Question Nos.1, 3 and 4: “10. [2]Celestial Biolabs Ltd. 10.5.1We have heard both parties|andcarefullyperusedandconsideredthe|material on record including the Judicial decisionscited. As discussed earlier, there is merit in the|contentionofthe.learnedDepartmentalRepresentative that the ruling of the co-ordinate|bench of this Tribunal in the case of Triology E-Business Software India Put. Ltd., [supra/, was|with respect to the facts relevant to an earlierfinancial year and there cannot be an assumptionthat it would continue to be applicable to all other Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 9/21 assesses for this year as well. At the same time,we find that the TPO also seems to have selectedthis company as a comparable, based on thereasoning given in the TPO’s order for the earlieryear 1.e., F.Y. 2006-07. Evidently, in this view ofthe matter, the TPO has not conducted anyindependent FAR analysis for this company forthe year under consideration and therefore theselection process adopted by the TPO is defective. Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 9/21 assesses for this year as well. At the same time,we find that the TPO also seems to have selectedthis company as a comparable, based on thereasoning given in the TPO’s order for the earlieryear 1.e., F.Y. 2006-07. Evidently, in this view ofthe matter, the TPO has not conducted anyindependent FAR analysis for this company forthe year under consideration and therefore theselection process adopted by the TPO is defective. 10.5.2|Further, besides relying on the|decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case ofTriology E-Business Software India Put. Ltd.,/supraj, the assessee has demonstrated that thefinding given therein for Assessment Year 2007-OS is applicable for this year also. Further, theassessee has also brought on record substantialevidence by quoting from various portions of theAnnual Report that this company is functionallydifferent from the assessee and hence is notcomparable to the assessee in the case on hand.We agree with the submissions made by theassessee, that as per the details from the AnnualReport of this company, it is functionally differentfrom the assessee. In view of the fact that thefinancial profile and other parameters of thiscompany have not changed during the year under Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 10/21 consideration, which fact has been demonstratedby the assessee, following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case ofTriology E-Business Software India Put. Ltd.,/supraj, we hold that the company ought to beexcluded from the list of comparables. It isordered accordingly. Ltd., 11.4 We have heard both parties and|perused and carefully considered the material onrecord including the judicial decisions cited. Asdiscussed earlier in this order, there is merit inthe contention of the learned DepartmentalRepresentative that the ruling rendered in thecase of Triology E-Business India Put. Ltd.,/Supraj was with respect to an earlier period t.e.,FLY. 2006-07 and there cannot be an assumption|or presumption that it is applicable for the yearunder consideration as well. At the same time, wefind that the TPO has drawn conclusions on thebasis of information obtained under Sectio 133/6/of the Act, which was not in the public domainand could not have been used by the TPO, whenthe same is contrary to the Annual Report of thecompany as has been highlighted by the Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 11/21 assessee in its submissions. We also find that theco-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case ofTrilogy E-Business Software India Put. Ltd.,/supra]hasheldthatthisCOMmpareWasdeveloping software products and was not purelyOT|mainlya}softwaredevelopmentSCTUVICEprovider. Further, apart from relying on thedecision of Trilogy E-Business Software India Put.Ltd., [supra/, the assessee has brought on recordSubstantialevidence|quotingfromVQATrI1Oportions of the Annual Report of that thiscompany is functionally dis-similar and differentfrom the assessee and hence is not comparableand therefore the finding rendered in respect ofthis company in the case of Trilogy E-Businesssoftware India Put. Ltd., for Assessment Year2007-081SapplicableforthisYear1.€.,Assessment Year 2008-09 also. In view of thefacts and circumstances of the case as discussedabove, we hold that this company t.e., KALSInformation Systems Ltd., is to be omitted fromthe set of comparable companies. 12.[4]Infosys Technologies Ltd., 12.4 We have heard the rival submissionsandperusedandcarefullyconsideredthe|material on record. We find that the assessee has Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 12/21 12.[4]Infosys Technologies Ltd., 12.4 We have heard the rival submissionsandperusedandcarefullyconsideredthe|material on record. We find that the assessee has Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 12/21 brought on record sufficient evidence to establishthat this company is functionally dis-similar anddifferent from the assessee and hence is notcomparable and the finding rendered in the caseof Iriogy E-Business Software India Put. Ltd.,/supra]for|AssessmentYear.2007-08|1Sapplicable to this year also. The argument putforth by assessee’s is that Infosys TechnologiesLtd., is not functionally comparable since it ownssignificant intangible and has huge revenues fromsoftware products. It is also seen that the breakup of revenue from software services andsoftware products is not available. In this view ofthe matter, we h old that this company ought tobe omitted from the set of comparable companies.It is ordered accordingly. 13.0 [5]Wipro Limited 13.4.1)We have heard both parties|and carefully perused the material on record. We.find merit in the contentions of the assessee forexclusion of this company from the _ set ocomparables. It is seen that this company is.engaged both in software development andproductdevelopmentservices. There1STLOinformation on the segmental bifurcation of|revenue from sale of product and_ software Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 13/21 services. The TPO appears to have adopted thiscompany as a comparable without demonstratinghowthe.COMpPay?satisfies the.softwaredevelopment sales 75% of the total revenue filteradopted by him. Another major flaw in thecomparability analysis carried out by the TPO isthat he adopted comparison of the consolidatedfinancial statements of Wipro with the standalone financials of the assessee; which is not anappropriate comparison. 13.4.2|We also find that this companyowns intellectual property in the formo_ ofregisteredpatentsandseveralpendingapplications for grant of patents. In this regard,the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the caseof24/7|Customer,Com.Put.Ltd.,[ITANo.227/ Bang/2010/ has held that a companyowning intangibles cannot be compared to a lowrisk captive service provider who does not ownany such intangible and hence does not have anadditional advantage in the market. As_ theassessee in the case on hand does not own anyintangibles, following the aforesaid decision ofthe co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal 1t.e., 24/7Customer.Com Put. Ltd., [supra], we hold that thiscompany cannot be considered as a comparable Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 14/21 to the assessee. We, therefore, direct theAssessing Officer/TPO to omit this company fromthe set of comparable companies in the case onhand for the year under consideration. 14.0 [6]Tata Elxsi Ltd. 14.4.1]We have heard both parttes|andcarefullyperusedandconsideredthematerial on record. From the details on record, wefind that this company is predominantly engagedin product designing services and not purelysoftware development services. The details in theAnnual Report show that the segment “softwaredevelopment services” relates to design servicesand are not similar to software developmentservices performed by the assessee." Regarding Substantial Question No.2: “QO 5.1]We have heard both parties|andperusedandcarefullyconsideredthematerial on record. It is seen from the record thatthe TPO has included this company in the finalset of comparables only on the basis ofinformation obtained under section 1353/6] of theAct. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the|TPO to have necessarily furnished the informationso gathered to the assessee and taken its Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., Regarding Substantial Question No.2: “QO 5.1]We have heard both parties|andperusedandcarefullyconsideredthematerial on record. It is seen from the record thatthe TPO has included this company in the finalset of comparables only on the basis ofinformation obtained under section 1353/6] of theAct. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the|TPO to have necessarily furnished the informationso gathered to the assessee and taken its Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 15/21 submissions thereon into consideration beforedeciding to include this company in its final list ofcomparables.Non-furnishingthe.information obtained under section 1533/6] of the Act to theassessee has vitiated the selection of this2? company as a comparable Regarding Substantial Question No.5: “17.0 [9]KPITCummins|InfosystemsLtd. 17.3 We have heard the submissions ofboth the learned Departmental Representative forTevenueandthe.learnedAuthorised|Representative for the assessee. We find from therecord that the TPO has neither explained thecomputation in the order nor has the TPOexplained how the RPT filter fails in this case.However, we do not find the contention of theassessee, that the computation has to be done ona consolidated basis, to be acceptable. This is forthe reason that when he comparability is betweenthe specific segments, there is no requirement totakethe.consolidatedfinancialsforthe computation. We agree with the view of the TPOthat the computation of the RPTfilter has to be ona standalone basis. With this finding, we restorethe issue back to the file of the Assessing Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 16/21 Officer/TPO to make the computation on standalongbasis,takingintoconsiderationthedecisions rendered by the co-ordinate bench ofthis Tribunal in this regard.” Regarding Substantial Question No.6: eO1ForeignExchangeGain/ Loss[Ground of appeal: 14] YD129.1We have heard both parties|and given careful consideration to the material onrecord. We find that the TPO in his order has notgiven any reasoning for treating foreign exchangegain / loss as a non-operating item of income /expense. In the remand report submitted to theDRP, the TPO has merely stated that theexchange loss / gain could be on account ofhedging / speculative activity owing to which ithas been treated as non-operating in nature. Inarejoinder to the remand report, the assessee hadSubmittedthatthe|aSSCSSCCTeECECLVEremuneration from its AEs for rendering ofservices in foreign currency. The foreign exchangegain / loss relates entirely to the rendering ofservices and there is no speculative hedgingactivity. Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 17/21 DID?|Before us, it was _ reiteratethat the foreign exchange gain should beconsideredas|ON.operating income|while|computing the operating margins of the assesseeand comparable companies. We have carefullyconsidered the submissions made. From thereasons given by the TPO in the remand report, itis clear that the TPO has considered the foreignexchange income as non-operating income basedon assumptions and surmises. As pointed out bythe assessee, there are several decisions of thisand other Tribunals which hold that foreignexchange gain related to business activities are tobe treated as operating income. In this view of thematter, we hold that foreign exchange gain is tobe treated as operating income in the view of thefacts in the case on hand and the margins are tobe computed accordingly.” Regarding Substantial Question No.7: Regarding Substantial Question No.7: “22.2 AS regards risk adjustment, the TPOhas not allowed any adjustment by observingthat this has been considered and discussed indetail in the order for earlier years. We find thaton similar facts, different co-ordinate benches ofthis Tribunal in the case of Intellinet TechnologiesIndia Put. Ltd., HTA No.237/Bang/2010/ and Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 18/21 Bearing Point Business Consulting Put. Ltd., TANo.1124/Bang/2011/ have held that the TPO)ought to have given risk adjustment to themargins of the comparables for bringing them onpar with the assessee and remanded the issueback to the file of the TPO. Following thedecisions in the aforementioned cases of the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal /[supraj/, wremand the issue of market risk adjustment to thefile of the Assessing Officer/TPO for examiningthe issue in the light of the decisions cited. 6.The controversy involved herein is no moreres integrain view of the decision of this Court in|L.T.A.Nos.536/2015 c/w 537/2015dated25.06.2018[Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. V/s.M/s.Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd.,]|wherein it has beenobserved that unless the finding of the Tribunal is foundex facie perverse, the Appeal u/s. 260-A of the Act, isnot maintainable. The relevant portion of the Judgmentis quoted below for ready reference: Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 19/21 “Conclusion: 05. A substantial quantum of international|trade and transactions depends upon the fair|and quick judicial dispensation in such cases.Had it been a case of substantial question ofinterpretation ofprovisions of Double Taxation|Avoidance Treaties (DIAA), interpretation of|provisions of the Income Tax Act or Overriding|Effect of the Treaties over the DomesticLegislations or the questions like TreatyShopping, Base Erosion and Profit Shifting|(BEPS), Transfer of Shares in Tax Havens.(like in the case of Vodafone etc.), if based on|relevant facts, such substantial questions|of law could be raised before the High|Court underSection 260-Aof the Act, theCourts could have embarked upon such|exercise of framing and answering such|substantial question of law. On the otherhand, the appeals of the present tenor as to|whether the comparables have been rightly|picked up or not, Filters for arriving at thecorrect list of comparables have been rightly|applied or not, do not in our considered Date of Judgment 12-07-2018, ITA No.20/2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax & Another Vs. M/s. Curam Software International Pvt. Ltd., 20/21 opinion, give rise to any substantial question|of law. 06. Weare therefore of the consideredopinion that the present appeals filed by the|Revenue do not give rise to any substantialquestionof|lawand.theSuggested|substantial questions of law do not meet therequirements ofSection 260-A|of the Act andthus the appeals filed by the Revenue are|found to be devoid of merit and the same are.liable to be dismissed. 57. We make it cleqr that the sameyardsticks and parameters will have to beapplied, even tf such appeals are filed by the|Assessees, because, there may be cases.where the Tribunal giving its own reasons|and findings has found certain comparables|to be good comparables to arrive at an|7s | “ALength Price“in the case of the assesseeswith which the assessees may not be|satisfied and have filed such appeals beforethis Court. Therefore we clarify that mere|dissatisfaction with the findings of facts|arrived at by the learned Tribunal ts not at all| a sufficient reason to invoke.Section 260-Aof the Act before this Court. o8. The appeals filed by the Revenueare therefore dismissed with no order as to|costs.” T.In the circumstances, having heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, we are of 57. We make it cleqr that the sameyardsticks and parameters will have to beapplied, even tf such appeals are filed by the|Assessees, because, there may be cases.where the Tribunal giving its own reasons|and findings has found certain comparables|to be good comparables to arrive at an|7s | “ALength Price“in the case of the assesseeswith which the assessees may not be|satisfied and have filed such appeals beforethis Court. Therefore we clarify that mere|dissatisfaction with the findings of facts|arrived at by the learned Tribunal ts not at all| a sufficient reason to invoke.Section 260-Aof the Act before this Court. o8. The appeals filed by the Revenueare therefore dismissed with no order as to|costs.” T.In the circumstances, having heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that no substantial question oflaw arises for consideration in the present case. | 8.Hence, the Appeal filed by the Appellants-Revenue is liable to be dismissed and is accordinglydismissed. No costs. | Sd/-.JUDGE. Sd/-.JUDGE.