OLYMPUS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA/291/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01105288202202 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) sought to withdraw the appeal. The appellant requested liberty to revive the appeal at a later stage if necessary, to challenge the ITAT's order dated August 21, 2026. The respondent-department did not object to this request. Consequently, the High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal with the liberty as prayed for by the assessee. No decision was made on the merits of the case concerning the benchmarking of international transactions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Olympus Medical System India Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi, dated August 21, 2026. The ITAT had referred the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for benchmarking international transactions. The assessee's grievance was that the ITAT, while holding the transactions to be international, had not correctly addressed the issue of benchmarking. The AO had made additions based on this, but the ITAT's subsequent order deleted these additions, stating that the AO's process of benchmarking was incorrect and thus the additions had become academic. The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in its order dated 21.08.2026, particularly concerning the benchmarking of international transactions, as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the ITAT's order, while acknowledging the transactions as international, did not adequately address the benchmarking process. The assessee's primary concern was the correctness of the AO's approach to benchmarking, which led to additions. However, the ITAT subsequently deleted these additions, rendering the issue academic. The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal with liberty to revive it. Revenue's contention: The respondent-department sought to challenge the ITAT's order dated 21.08.2026.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN (Sr. No. 223)

M/s Olym

Deputy C

CORAM

Present :

DEEPAK (1) under cha by the ap back to th addition h addition s Delhi on adopted b been rend N THE HIGH COURT OF P AT CHANDI

mpus Medical System India Pvt. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Ci M : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Prashant Meharchandani Mr. Rahul Diwan, Advocate Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Stan Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior St Ms. Nikita Garg, Junior Stan the respondent(s)-Income Ta

* * * K SIBAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the ap allenge through this appeal, the I ppellant to be international trans he appellant’s AO for bench m holding the appellant’s transac stands deleted by the order dat the ground that the process of by the AO was not correct and dered academic. PUNJAB & HARYANA IGARH

ITA No.291 of 2022 Date of decision : 02.09.2026 Ltd. .....Petitio ircle-3, Gurgaon ` .....Responde E DEEPAK SIBAL E SUNISH BINDLISH i, Advocate (appeared through V for the appellant. ding Counsel, tanding Counsel and nding Counsel for ax Department. ppellant submits that in the or ITAT, after holding the transacti sactions, had referred to the ma marking. Though the AO made ctions to be international but su ted 21.08.2026 of the ITAT, N f bench marking such transacti d therefore, the present appeal

6 oner ents

VC) rder ons atter an uch New ons has SUNIL YADAV 2026.09.07 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

ITA No.2

(2)

to withdra case the r ITAT, Ne (3)

02.09.202 sunil yadav

Wh 91 of 2022 [2] In the light of the above, lear aw this appeal with liberty to t respondent-department seeks to c ew Delhi dated 21.08.2026. Dismissed as withdrawn with

( v

hether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No hether reportable : Yes / No

rned counsel for the appellant se the appellant to revive the same challenge the aforesaid order of h liberty as prayed for. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE ( SUNISH BINDLISH ) JUDGE o o eeks e in the SUNIL YADAV 2026.09.07 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →