PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, NEW DELHI vs. HCL SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.

$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 552/2024 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, NEW DELHI

.....Appellant

Through: Counsel (appearance not given).

versus

HCL SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Jain, Mr. Aditya Vohra and Mr.Shashvat Dhamija, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

O R D E R %

13.11.2024 CM APPL. 66131/2024 (Exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 66130/2024 (delay) 3. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 122 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of. ITA 552/2024 5. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) impugning a common order dated 20.12.2023 passed in ITA No. 537/Del/2021 in respect of assessment year (AY) 2012-13. The Revenue has projected the following questions for This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:43:59

consideration of this Court: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred by not appreciating that the income of the Respondent-assessee is in the nature of Fee for Technical Services/Fee chargeable to tax under Section 9(1)(vii) on the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Included Services (FTS/FIS) rendered by it to HCLT for the business of HCLT carried on by HCLT in India for a client, which in this case, is located outside India? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in holding that both HCLT and the Respondent-assessee are jointly rendering services and therefore, it is a case of revenue sharing between HCLT and the Respondent- assessee qua the foreign customers of HCLT? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned judgment is perverse to the extent that additional evidence filed on behalf of the Appellant has neither been admitted nor rejected?”

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 13, 2024 A

Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:43:59