The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai v. M/S.indo American Jewellary Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6869 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.Indo American Jewellary Limited..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.K Shivram with Mr.Ajay Singh, Mr.Paras Savla & Ms.Renu Choudhary for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 27[th] November 2012 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer and confirming the computation of Arms Length Price adopted by the assessee is the basic question raised by the Revenue in this appeal. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in para-11 & 12 of its order has recorded detailed reasons as to why the comparables situated at SEEPZ selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) could not be said to be comparables. Similarly, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has given cogent reasons as to why other companies selected by the TPO could not be said to be comparables. 3.For the reasons set out in the aforesaid paras, in our opinion, the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is based on finding of fact and, hence, no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)