Pr.commissioner Of Income Tax-08 v. Sojitz India Private Ltd

$~68 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 742/2017 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-08..... AppellantThrough: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. StandingCounsel with Mr.Deepak Anand, Advocate ..... Appellant versus SOJITZ INDIA PRIVATE LTD...... RespondentThrough:Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R%04.09.2017 1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 13[th]December,2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITANo.1195/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2.The question of law urged by the Revenue pertains to inclusion andexclusion of comparables for determining the arms length price (ALP) forthe purpose of transfer pricing adjustment arising out of the internationaltransactions entered into by the Assessee with its Associated Enterprise. 3. A perusal of the impugned order of the ITAT reveals that the ITAT gavedetailed reasons in support of its conclusions.Learned counsel for theRevenue has urged that the reasons given by ITAT are incomplete inasmuchas out of the several grounds in support of the conclusions reached by theDispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the ITAT has discussed only one ground. ITA No.742/2017 Page 1 of 2 It is accordingly submitted that the conclusions of the ITAT in respect ofeach of the comparables are perverse. 4.This Court finds that neither in the questions of law as urged by theRevenue nor in the grounds in the memorandum of Appeal is there a specificplea that the conclusions of the ITAT are perverse. In any event, the groundof perversity is not to be casually urged. It has to be supported by a properpleading which again has to be on the basis of a detailed study of theimpugned order of the ITAT pointing out to the High Court in what mannerthe ITAT’s conclusions can be said to be perverse. This condition is not metin the present case. Incidentally, even the word ‘perversity’ has not beenused anywhere in the questions of law or in the grounds urged before theCourt. 5. The exclusion and inclusion of comparables is by and large an exercise ofanalysis of facts. If there has to be a substantial question of law framed onsuch an issue, the Revenue should come up with a proper plea based on adetailed study of the impugned order of the ITAT. This Court is thereforenot persuaded in the present case to hold that any substantial question of lawhas arisen for consideration from the impugned order of the ITAT. 6. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. SEPTEMBER 04, 2017/pk PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. ITA No.742/2017