Itta/661/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S. Tecumseh Products India Pvt. Ltd

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.661 of 2014 DATED:28.11.2014 Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Hyderabad.And … Appellant M/s. Tecumseh Products India Pvt. Ltd.,Hyderabad. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.661 of 2014 Judgment :(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted againstthe judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 28.5.2014 onthe following suggested questions of law: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case,whether the order of the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) isnot perverse and correct in law in directing theAssessing Officer to treat the revised return asvalid return for the assessment year 2007-2008,when the Respondent-assessee did not file revisedreturn ? 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case,whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct inlaw in directing the Assessing Officer to considerthe suo-motu adjustments made by theRespondent-assessee, operation cost asmentioned in its order, which does not form part ofaudited financial statement ? 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case,whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is justified inrejecting companies on the ground of exceptionallylarge scale of operations and thereby ignoring thefact that high or low turnover does not influence themargins of the comparables ? 4.In the facts and circumstances of the case,whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct inlaw in rejecting companies on the ground offunctional difference when the tax payer has notconsidered the verticals and horizontals of thesoftware sector while selecting the comparables ? 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case,whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct inlaw in rejecting the companies relying on its owndecision in the case of M/s. Intoto Software IndiaLimited, in I.T.A. No.1196/Hyd/2010, wherein, thecomparables Megasoft Limited and Tata ElxiLimited, were set aside for re-consideration ? The first two questions raised by the learned counsel for theRevenue have already been decided by this Court against theRevenue, in appeal, being, I.T.T.A. No. 575 of 2014. Hence, weneed not decide the same. As far as the other three suggested questions of law areconcerned, it appears that the learned Tribunal has given a factfinding after examining the comparable instances and thereaftercame to the conclusion that the companies mentioned in thejudgment are not comparable companies while following the earlierjudgments of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any element of law to be decidedin this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. __________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 28[th] November, 2014 Pnb