Itta/717/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S Knoah Solutions Private Limited
High Court
23 Dec 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/717/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S Knoah Solutions Private Limited
Date of order
23 Dec 2014
Assessment year(s)
2007-2008
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itta/717/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S Knoah Solutions Private Limited, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A.No.717 of 2014
DATED:23.12.2014
Between:Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Hyderabad.And
… Appellant
M/s. Knoah Solutions Private Limited,Hyderabad.
….Respondent
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A.No.717 of 2014
Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 25.4.2014 by theRevenue in relation to the assessment year 2007-2008 on thefollowing suggested question of law:
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether theHon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in upholding thedirections to exclude four (4) companies i.e., Infosys BPOLimited and three (3) other companies from the comparables forthe determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) of the internationaltransactions of the Respondent-assessee ?Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in upholding thedirections to exclude four (4) companies i.e., Infosys BPOLimited and three (3) other companies from the comparables forthe determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) of the internationaltransactions of the Respondent-assessee ?
The learned Tribunal, it appears, on the issue raised above, hason fact, found that comparable instances are acceptable. Therefore,we do not substitute our appreciation of fact.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
__________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_________________
SANJAY KUMAR,
J
23[rd] December, 2014
Pnb
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.