Itxa/446/2017 Of The Pr. Commissinor Of Income Tax - 9 v. M/S Bunge India Pvt Ltd
High Court
03 Jun 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/446/2017 Of The Pr. Commissinor Of Income Tax - 9 v. M/S Bunge India Pvt Ltd
Date of order
03 Jun 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/446/2017 Of The Pr. Commissinor Of Income Tax - 9 v. M/S Bunge India Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Without recordingseparate reasons, this appeal is also dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
Priya Soparkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.446 OF 2017
Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-9… Appellant
V/s.
M/s Bunge India Pvt. Ltd.… Respondent
---
Mr.Tejveer Singh Mastan Singh for the Appellant.Mr.Sanjiv M. Shah for the Respondent.
---
CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 03, 2019.
P.C.:-
1.Revenue has filed this appeal against the judgment of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following questions were arguedat the time of hearing:-
“(i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law, the ITAT was correct in settingaside the adjustment made by the TPO in respectof import of raw material to the file of the TPO, forpro-rata adjustment considering only the AEtransactions, when this was not a ground raisedeither by Revenue or by the assessee and segmentalaccounts (in respect of AE and non-AE transactions
were not available in the case?
(ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, the ITAT was correct in factsand circumstances of case and in law, in terms ofRule 10B(1)(e), under the Transaction Net MarginMethod (TNMM), it is permissible to apply the netprofit margin realized by the assessee from theentity as a whole in place of the net profit marginrealized by the assessee from the internationaltransaction entered into with the AE?”
2.Identical appeal concerning the same assessee filed by therevenue being Income Tax Appeal No.445 of 2017 came to bedismissed by the separate order passed today. Without recordingseparate reasons, this appeal is also dismissed.
3.Before conclusion we may record the appeal memo includesa question about correctness of the assessee’s claim of deductionof provision made towards employees' stock option. However,learned counsel for the revenue stated that this question does notarise out of the impugned judgment of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal. This question is therefore not considered in this appeal.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)….
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.