Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr v. M/S.mcafee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 28[th]DAY OF JUNE 2ZO1L8 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.508/2016 Between:| 1.)Principal Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Building, Queens Road| Bangalore-560 OO1. iaThe Income Tax officer|Ward 12(1), Bangalore.Ward 12(1), Bangalore. ..Appellants #By Mr. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) And: M/s McAfee Software (India) Pvt. LTd.,Embassy Golf LinksBusiness Park, Pine Valley[nd]Floor, Off. IndiranagarIntermediate Ring RoadKoramangalaBangalore-560 O71. .. Respondent #By Mr. Ankur Pai, Advocate) Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2/22 This I.T.A. is tiled under Section 260-A of Income Tax!Act 1961, praying to (a) Decide the foregoing question of law|and/or such other questions of law as may be formulated bythe Hon’ble Court as deemed fit. (b) Set aside the appellate|order dated:18/03/2016 passed by the ITAT, ‘B’ Bench,|Bengaluru,1n appealproceedingsNO.IT(T.P)ANo. 1388/Bang/2011 for Assessment Year 2005-06, as sought |for in this appeal; and to grant such other relief as deemed|fit, in the interest of justice and etc. This I.T.A. coming on tor Admission, this day Dr. Vineet KothariJ. delivered the following:- JU DBGMENT Mr. E.I. Sanmathi.Adv. for Appellants - RevenueMr. Ankur Pai.Adv. for Respondent-Assessee 1. The Appellants - Revenue have filed this appealraising purported substantial questions of law arisingfrom the Order of thelearned Income Tax Appellate| Tribunal “B” Bench: Bangalore,Annexure Adated18/03/2016inIT(TP)A.No.1388/Bang/2011forAY2005-06 2. The appellants - Revenue have suggested threesubstantial questions of law which are quoted below forready reference: - Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 3/22 “(1) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal 1isright in law in directing the assessing|authority to reduce the expenses So incurred,both from export turnover as well as from|total turnover in accordance with the decision|of this Hon’ble Court in case of CIT Vs. Tata|Elxsit even when sqid order has not reachedfinality and there is no such computationprescribed under the provisions of SectionLOA? (2) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstancestheTribunal1S|rightin.directing the Transfer Pricing Officer toexcludethecompaniesas|comparablesnamely, Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. Exensys|Software Solutions Ltd. Sankhya Infotech Ltd.Foursoft Ltd., Thirdware Solutions Ltd. TataElxi Ltd. Infosys Technologies Ltd. Flextronics|Ltd.and.GeometricSoftwareSolutionscompany Ltd. even when the TPO has chosen|the said comparables as all the required tests|are satisfied? Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4/22 (3)Whether on the facts and in the|circumstances of the case, the Tribunal 1isrejecting the comparables chosen by TPO by|not appreciating specific information collected|under Section 133(6) of the LT. Act from|companies chosen as comparables by TPO|andignoring|thatthe|principle|that|comparability of the comparables depends in|transfer pricing on assessee specific FAR|analysis and specific facts brought out on|record by the TPO in the case of theassesseePr” 3. The learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue, Mr. E.IJ. Sanmathi, by way of a Memo hasproposed an additional substantial question of law,which is quoted below for ready reference:- 4/22 (3)Whether on the facts and in the|circumstances of the case, the Tribunal 1isrejecting the comparables chosen by TPO by|not appreciating specific information collected|under Section 133(6) of the LT. Act from|companies chosen as comparables by TPO|andignoring|thatthe|principle|that|comparability of the comparables depends in|transfer pricing on assessee specific FAR|analysis and specific facts brought out on|record by the TPO in the case of theassesseePr” 3. The learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue, Mr. E.IJ. Sanmathi, by way of a Memo hasproposed an additional substantial question of law,which is quoted below for ready reference:- “Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal 1isright in law in confirming order of the CIT (A)|allowing standard deduction of +/- 5% as per|section 92-C(2) of the Act by following its|earlier decision in the case of Sap Labs India| Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 5/22 Put.Ltd. V/s. ACIT (reported in 6 ITR /Trib.] &1(ITAT).(Bang)” 4. The learned counsel appearing for theappellants- Revenue submitted that he does not pressthe third substantial question of law raised in thepresent appeal. Oo. In so far as the first purported substantialquestion of law raised by the Revenue is concerned, thesame is covered by the Division Bench decision of thisCourt in the case otfM/s.Tata Elxsit Ltd., Vs.Asst.CommissionerofIncome.Tax,decidedOTL20/10/2015(2015) 127 DTR O327 (Kar). which has_been alfirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the caseoT Commissioner of Income-tax, Central —- III vs. HCLTechnologies Ltd., [2018] 93 Taxmann.com 33(SC). The relevant portion of the judgment of this Courtin the case of.M/s.Tata Elxsi (supra),is quoted belowfor ready reference:- Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 6/22 “20. From the aforesaid provisions, it isclear that if a assessee wants to claim the|benefit of Section 10A, firstly he must exportarticles or things or computer’ software. |secondly,the said export may be donedirectly by htm or through other exporterafter fulfilling the conditions mentionedtherein.Thirdly, such an exportShouldyield foreign exchangewhich should bebrought into the country. If all these three|conditions are fulfilled, then the object of|enacting Section 10A is fulfilled and the|assessee would be entitled to the benefit of|exemption from payment of Income Tax Act on|theprofits|andgainsderivedby|the|Undertaking from the export. QI!)Clause 6.11 ofEximPolicydealing with entitlement for supplies from the|DTA states that supplies from the DIA toEOU/EHTP/ STP/BITP unitwill be regardedas ‘deemed export’,besides being eligiblefor relevant entitlements under paragraph6.12 of the Policy. They will also be eligible| Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 7/22 QI!)Clause 6.11 ofEximPolicydealing with entitlement for supplies from the|DTA states that supplies from the DIA toEOU/EHTP/ STP/BITP unitwill be regardedas ‘deemed export’,besides being eligiblefor relevant entitlements under paragraph6.12 of the Policy. They will also be eligible| Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 7/22 for the additional entitlements mentionedtherein. What is of importance is when a|supply is made from DTA to STP, it does notsatisfy the requirements of export as definedunder the Customs Act. However, for the|purpose of Exim Policy, it is treated as‘deemed export. Therefore, when|SectionIOA of the Act was introduced to giveeffect to the Exim Policy, the suppliesmade from one STP to another STP hasto be treated as ‘deemed export’becauseClause 6.19 specifically provides for export|through Status Holder. It provides that an|EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP unit may export goodsmanufactured/ softwaredevelopedby|itthrough other exporter or Status holderrecognized under this policy or any other|EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP unit. What follows.from this provision is that)to be eligible forexemption from payment of tncome tax,export should earn foreign exchange.[tdoes not mean that the undertakingShouldpersonallyexportgoodsmanufactured / software developed by itoutside the country. It may export out of Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 8/22 India by itself or export out of Indiathrough any other STP Unit. |Once the.goods manufactured by the assessee is.Shown to have been exported out of Indiaeither by the assessee or by another STP Unitand foreign exchange is directly attributable|to such export, then Section 10A of the Acttsattracted and such exporter is entitled tobenefit of deduction of such profits and gains|derived from such export from payment of|income tax. Therefore, the finding of the|authorities that the assessee has not directly|exportedthecomputersoftwareoutsidecountry and because it supplied the software|to another STP unit, which though exported|and foreign exchange received was_ nottreated as an export and was held to be not|entitled to the benefit is unsustainable in law. |The substantial question of law is answered|in favour of the assessee and against the|revenue. The appeal is allowed. Theimpugned orders are set aside. The|assessee 1s held to be entitled to deduction ofsuch profits and gains derived from the exportof the computer software. No costs’. Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 9/22 6. The relevant portion of the judgment of theHon'blesupremeCourtin.theCaSE€oT|HCL|Technologies Ltd. (supra),is quoted below for readyreference:-. “17. The similar nature of controversy,akin this case, arose before the Karnataka|High Court inCIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd[2012]204|Taxman321/17/taxman.com100/349 ITR 98.The issue before theKarnataka High Court was whether theTribunal was correct in holding that while|computing relief under Section 10A of the IT|Act, the amount of communication expensesShould be excluded from the total turnover tfthe same are reduced from the export|turnover? While gwing the answer to the|issue, the High Court, inter-alia, held thatwhen a particular word is not defined by the|legislature and an ordinary meaning is to be|attributed to it, the said ordinary meaning 1s to be in conformity with the context in whichtt |is used. Hence, what is excluded from ‘export Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 10/22 Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 10/22 turnover’ must also be excluded from ‘total|turnover’, since one of the components of|‘total turnover is export turnover. Any other|interpretation would run counter to the|legislative intent and would be impermissible. TSB. XXXKXX X 19. In the instant case, tf the deductionson freight, telecommunication and insurance|attributable to the delivery of computer'software under Section 10A of the IT Act areallowed only in Export Turnover but not from|the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to|inadvertent,unlawful,meaninglessand.ulogical result which would cause _ graveinjustice to the Respondent which could have|never been the intention of the legislature. 20. Even in common parlance, when theobject of the formula is to arrive at the profit|from export business, expenses excluded fromexport turnover have to be excluded from total|TUTnNOoOValso.Otherwise,arlyotherinterpretation makes the formula unworkable|and absurd. Hence, we are satisfied that Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 11/22 such deduction shall be allowed from the totalturnover in same proportion as well”. 7. In so far as the second substantial question oflaw is concerned, the learned ITAT in its Order dated 18/03/2016has given the following findings, the.relevant portion of which is quoted below tor readyreference: - aaSatyam Computers Ltd: 10.1. Out of the above comparables, Satyam|Computer Services Ltd. was excluded by|CIT(A) on the basis of non-reliability offinancial data. Revenue has accepted thesame and has not contested. So, the saidcompany has been rightly excluded. InfosysTechnologiesLtd..Exensys Software Solutions Ltd.7 10.2. Ld.CIT(A) has excluded Infosys and|EXeENSYS,ON.the|basisof|functionaldissimilarity and having extraordinary event Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 12/22 duringthe|YEA|Exensys Was having extraordinary profits by way of amalgamation|of companies during the year. Infosys was|excluded having different functionality of|products, having high turnover and brandname. Following the decision of Agnity|Technologies V.s Ito OF itat AS APPROVED BY|THE Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Infosys cannot|be considered as comparable. The same view|was held by Co-ordinate Bench in the case of|ITO Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems|(India), PrivateLimited,in.IT(ITPJANo.1302/ Bang/ 2011 dt.11.06.2015 (supra).Since the orders of Ld.CIT(A) is in agreement|with the decision on these two comparables|by various co-ordinate Benches, we uphold|the same. Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. 10.3. This company was_ retained by|Ld.CIT(A) but Assessee objects on the basis offunctionality. However, as seen from theorders of co-ordinate Benches in the case of|ITO Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information Systems| Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 13/22 (India)PrivateLimitedin.IT(TPJA.No. 1302/ Bang/ 20at.11-06-2015'(suprajaswellas|DCITVs.Toshibqembedded Software (I)Pvt.Ltd. in IT (IPJA|No. 1/ Bang/ 20dt. 10-05-2013,Bodhtree|ConsultingLtd., LUGSacceptedas|(Ocomparable. However in the case of Cordys|softwareIndia.P.|Ltd.in|ITANo.1451/ Hyd/ 201at. 13-06-2014(whereone of us, AM ts the author) has considered in|detail and excluded the same for the following|TeasSsons . . .. . . Considering the above, we direct that the|above company has to be excluded on the|reason of RPI of more than 25% and|functionality. Lanco Global Systems Ltd: Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 13/22 (India)PrivateLimitedin.IT(TPJA.No. 1302/ Bang/ 20at.11-06-2015'(suprajaswellas|DCITVs.Toshibqembedded Software (I)Pvt.Ltd. in IT (IPJA|No. 1/ Bang/ 20dt. 10-05-2013,Bodhtree|ConsultingLtd., LUGSacceptedas|(Ocomparable. However in the case of Cordys|softwareIndia.P.|Ltd.in|ITANo.1451/ Hyd/ 201at. 13-06-2014(whereone of us, AM ts the author) has considered in|detail and excluded the same for the following|TeasSsons . . .. . . Considering the above, we direct that the|above company has to be excluded on the|reason of RPI of more than 25% and|functionality. Lanco Global Systems Ltd: 10.4. This Company even though included by|TPO and has not been objected to by|Assessee, was rejected by the CIT (A) on thereason of low profit margin. This is not a| Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 14/22 valid ground. Only continuous loss making|companies are being excluded from_ thecomparability. ItthisargumentLUaSaccepted, the high profit making companies|are also to be excluded. This is not the|purpose for which TP analysis is_ beingundertaken. Therefore, keeping the principles|laid down by the Special Bench of ITAT in the|case of Maersk Global Centers (India) P.Ltd.|43 Taxmann.com 100 Mumbai (SB), we}consider the same as comparable and retainit in the list. SankhyaInfotechLtd..Thirdware|Solution Ltd.. & Tata Elxsi Ltd.. 10.5. These three companies arerejected as comparables on functionality in|the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Sunquest Information|Systems (India) Private Limited, in IT(TP)A|No.1302/ Bang/ 2011 adt.11-O6-2015 (supr(paras 19-20, 22-26, 27-30 respectively) and|in the case of Cordys Software India P. Ltd.,in ITA No.1451/Hyd/2010 at.13-06-2014| Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 15/22 (supra) at para.No.13. The analysis by theCo-ordinate Benches 1s as under: . . .. . . 10.6. ...tet Four Soft Ltd. 10.7. The objection by Assessee 1s that this|company is a product company was analysed|and accepted in the case of ITO Vs. M/s.|Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private|Limited, in IT (IPJA No.1302/Bang/2011dt.1 1-06-2015 (supra)para 22. It was held|that the said company has derived income|from software license and AMCs. Since.functionalityLUaSalreadyanalysed, respectfully|followingthe|Co-ordinateBenches also, the same was to be excluded. 1.Intoto.softwareIndia|Pot. Ltd.ITANo. 1196/ Hyd/ 201 il. Cordys Software India P. Ltd. ITA|No.1451/ Hyd/ 201 Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 16/22 Geometric Software Solutions CompanyLtd. 10.8. Even though this company was|accepted as comparable in ITO Vs. M/s.Sunquest Information Systems (India) Private|Limited, in IT(TP) A No.1302/Bang/ 2011dt.1 1-06-2015 (supra) and Cordys SoftwareIndia P.Ltd. in ITA No.1451/Hyd/ 2010 dt. 106-2014 (supra) and was not objected to, we.find that the Co-ordinate Bench at Banalore in|the case of DCIT Vs. Toshiba embedded|software(I)Pout. Ltdin|TT(TP)ANo. 1/ Bang/ 20at.10-05-2013|has.consideredthatthis1S in|productdevelopment. We have perused the TPO’sorder. In page 85 and 86 of the order, this|comparable was analysed. TPO records that|there are product sales to be extent of 18%.|segmental profits are not available. On |assumptions, this company was _ retained.We are of the opinion that being a productbased company, the same is not Strictly|comparable to a _ service company likeAssessee. In the absence of segmental profit Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 17/22 of service income, we have to exclude the|same. Following the decision in the case ofDCIT Vs. Toshiba embedded Software (I) Put.Ltd. in IT (TP)Ja No.1/Bang/2012 dt.10-052013 (supra), this company is accordinglyexcluded. Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & L & TInfotech: 10.9. These two companies are found|comparable in many orders of the Co-ordinate|Benches, but excluded on the basis ofturnover filter of Rs.200 crores limit in ITO Vs.M/s.|sunquestInformationoystems|(India)Private Limitedin|TT(TP)A.No. 1302/ Bang/ 20at.11-06-2015'(supra), we have considered the same.Assessee’s turnover is aqbout 63 Crores. The'turnover ofIgate Global Solutions Ltd.(Seg}1S about 405 crores and L & T Infotech Ltd ts of|962 Crores. This is with the range of ten|times the upper limit. Moreover, assessee|counsel has not pressed on turnover filter of| Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 18/22 Rs.200 crores. Therefore, these two areretained. Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. 10.10. This company was objected to on|functional dissimilarity. This was consideredin|ITO)Vs.M/s.sunquestInformationSystems (India) Private Limited, in IT(TP)A|No.1302/ Bang/ 2011 dt.11-06-2015 (supraas under: . . . . . . Respectfully following, we exclude the same.” 8. In so far as the additional substantial questionof law proposed by the learned counsel appearing forthe appellants — Revenue is concerned, the learned ITATin its Order dated18/03/2016has given the followingfindings, the relevant portion of which is quoted forready reference:- “11.2.Not only that, the explanationbrought in by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. O1-04- Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 19/22 2015 also specifies that the provisions ofsecond proviso shall also be applicable to allassessments or reassessments proceedings|pending before the AO as on the first day ofOctober 2009. The present proceedings were|concluded before that day. So, the second|proviso to Section 92C(2) does not apply to|the impugned _ order. The pre-amendedproviso, as interpreted by various authorities|does permit standard deduction of (+) or (-) 5%|to Assessee. The order of Ld.CII{(A) isconfirmed. The revenue’s ground is rejected|accordingly. ~ 9. However, this Court in a recent judgment inI.T.A.No.536/2015c/w.I.T.A.No.537/2015(Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore andAnother Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P.Ltd.,) renderedon 25-06-2018,has held that in these type of cases,unless an.ex-facte» perversity in the findings of thelearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is established bythe appellant, the appeal at the instance of an assessee Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 20/22 or the Revenue under.Section 260-Aot the Act is notmaintainable and the relevant portion of the saidjudgment is quoted below for ready reference: “Conclusion: 9. However, this Court in a recent judgment inI.T.A.No.536/2015c/w.I.T.A.No.537/2015(Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore andAnother Vs. M/s. Softbrands India P.Ltd.,) renderedon 25-06-2018,has held that in these type of cases,unless an.ex-facte» perversity in the findings of thelearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is established bythe appellant, the appeal at the instance of an assessee Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 20/22 or the Revenue under.Section 260-Aot the Act is notmaintainable and the relevant portion of the saidjudgment is quoted below for ready reference: “Conclusion: 55.|Asubstantial quantumofinternational trade and transactions dependsupon the fair and quick judicial dispensationin such cases. Had it been a case ofSubstantialquestionof|interpretationofprovisions of Double Taxation AvoidanceTreaties (DTAA), interpretation ofprovisions ofthe Income Tax Act or Overriding Effect of theTreaties over the Domestic Legislations or the |questions like Treaty Shopping, Base Erosionand Profit Shifting (BEPS), Transfer of Sharesin Tax Havens (like in the case of Vodafoneetc.), uf based on relevant facts, such|substantial questions of law could beraised before the High Court underSection.260-4of the Act, the Courts could haveembarked upon such exercise offraming andanswering such substantial question of law.On the other hand, the appeals of the present Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., 21/22 tenor as to whether the comparables havebeen rightly picked up or not, Filters forarriving at the correct list of comparableshave been rightly applied or not, do not in ourconsideredopinion,|giverisetoanysubstantial question of law. 26. We are therefore of the considered|opinion that the present appeals filed by theRevenue do not give rise to any substantialquestionof|lawandtheSuggestedsubstantial questions of law do not meet therequirements ofSection 260-A.of the Act and|thus the appeals filed by the Revenue arefound to be devoid of merit and the same areliable to be dismissed. 57. We make it clear that the same'§yardsticks and parameters will have to beapplied, even if such appeals are filed by theAssessees, because, there may be caseswhere the Tribunal giving its own reasonsand findings has found certain comparablesto be good comparables to arrive at an|°“Arm’sLength Price“in the case of the assesseeswith which the assessees may not be Date of Judgment 28-06-2018 I.T.A.No.508/2016 Vs. M/s.McAfee Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 22/22 satisfied and have filed such appeals beforethis Court. Therefore we clarify that meredissatisfaction with the findings of factsarrived at by the learned Tribunal ts not at alla sufficient reason to invoke|Section 260-Aof the Act before this Court. o&. The appeals filed by the Revenue|are therefore dismissed with no order as tocosts.” 10. Having heard the learned counsel for theparties, this Court is satisfied that no substantialquestion of law would arise in the present case and theappeal filed by the Revenue is therefore, liable to bedismissed. Accordingly, itis dismissed. No costs. BMV* Sd/-. JUDGE Sd/-| JUDGE