It Is An Agreed Position Between The Parties That Both Thequestions For Our Consideration Stand Concluded Against Revenueand In Favour Of The Respondent-Assesse v. Therefore, The Two Questions As Proposed By The Revenuedo Not Give Rise To A Substantial Question Of Law. Thus, Notentertained

Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.454 OF 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 … Appellant V/s. Manugraph India Ltd.… Respondent --- Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr.Nishant Thakkar with Ms.Jasmine Amalsadvala i/by M/s PDSLegal for the Respondent. --- CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 19, 2018. P.C.:- 1.This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 25[th] March, 2015passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). ThisAppeal relates to Assessment Year 2008-09. 2.The Revenue urges the following two questions of law forour consideration: “1.Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law the Hon'bleTribunal was justified, in terms of Section 92C ofthe Act read with Rule 10B of the I.T.Rules, inrestricting the rate of interest at 'LIBOR + 2%' onloans given by the Assessee to its Associated Enterprise instead of 17.26% proposed by theTransfer Pricing Officer (TPO)?2.Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law the Hon'bleTribunal was justified, in terms of Section 92C ofthe Act read with Rule 10B of the I.T.Rules, inrestricting the rate of interest at 0.5% on corporateguarantee given by the Assessee to its AssociatedEnterprise instead of 6% proposed by the TransferPricing Officer?” 3.It is an agreed position between the parties that both thequestions for our consideration stand concluded against Revenueand in favour of the Respondent-Assessee by the decision of thisCourt in CIT Vs. M/s Everest Kanto Cyliners Ltd.(ITA No. 294of 2016) decided on 20[th] July, 2018. Infact, the impugned order ofthe Tribunal has followed its decision in Everest Kanto CylinersLtd., which was the subject matter of the above appeal before usand the view of the Tribunal was upheld. 4.Therefore, the two questions as proposed by the Revenuedo not give rise to a substantial question of law. Thus, notentertained. Priya Soparkar 5.Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.) ….