fa- ~ :::> ()t '\ c--' J: (~ &- "'T'" i- ~:z .~~> (~ <C ::r: 1-" t-i ';Z ~.:( ;:;.0 ,~ 'J Z :::;) ?"\ .1""""" ~~~ Income Tax Appeal No. 170 of 2011 1 11 ~ / IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CKANDIGARH. Income Tax Appeal No. 170 of 2011 Date of decision: 8.7.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala --- Appellant Versus Mis. Rakhra Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Patiala --- Respondent CORAM: I HON'BlE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEl ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BlE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAl Present: Mr. Tejwinder Joshi and Ms. Rajwinder Kaur, Advocates for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") has .been filed by the revenue against the order dated 27.8.2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (in short "the Tribunal") in ITA No. . , 177/CHAND1/2010, relating to the assessment year 2005-2006. 2. The following substantial questions of law have been claimed for determination of this Court: "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the. Tribunal was legally correct in directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-compute Arm's length Price (ALP) at 21.97% even when the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had """ ~ I- ~ => 0 () :I: ~- :J: -<t :z :d: >- a:: ~ J: t~ Z {~ QJ«..-, z => rJ.. , Income Tax Appeal No. 170 of 2011 2 - arrived at 35.26% after due consideration of all the relevant factors. (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the ca'se, the ITAT was justified in issuing direction to the AO to re- compute ALP after total Rs. adopting cost at 1,70,84,964/- instead of Rs. 2,02,67,550/- and whether- ~ the adjustment for the depreciation on administrative assets, as directed by the ITAT, is sust?inable in the eyes of law. (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in deleting the additiol} of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of disallowance of Advertisement expenses, even when the same were inadmissible, being capital in nature." 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly submitted that the matter is covered against the Revenue by the order of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 169 of 2011 in (Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. MIs. Rakhra Technologies Pvt. iLtd., Patiala) dated 7.7.2011 whereby the said appeal preferred by the Revenue had been dismissed. 4. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. July 8, 201-1 *rkmalik*