PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2 vs. COPAL RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order. The Court reasoned that the Revenue was not prejudiced because the ITAT's order allowed the Revenue to argue all its submissions, and no arguments were being foreclosed. The ITAT's decision to doubt the six comparables and remit the matter for reconsideration by the TPO was therefore not considered a substantial question of law warranting interference by the High Court. The appeals were dismissed on this basis. No specific issue was left undecided.
What were the facts?
These are two appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeals concern the assessment years not specified in the judgment. The ITAT's order, which is under challenge, doubted the use of six comparables and remitted the matter for reconsideration by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The Revenue contends that both the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the TPO had provided reasons and issued notices regarding the inclusion of these six comparables for the determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The respondent, Copal Research India Pvt. Ltd., was represented by none. The High Court considered the submissions and the ITAT's reasoning.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ITAT erred in doubting the use of six comparables for ALP determination and remitting the matter to the TPO, thereby prejudicing the Revenue? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that both the DRP and the TPO had provided valid reasons and issued notices for the inclusion of the six comparables in the ALP determination. They contended that the ITAT's order, by doubting these comparables and remitting the matter, prejudiced their position.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$-3 &4 + + • In the fflGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 187/2017. CM. APPT,.SQSQ/7ni7 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2 Appellant versus COPAL RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD. Respondent ITA 188/2017. CM. APPT..SQQn/?ni7 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2 Appellant versus COPAL RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD. Respondent Through : Sh. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Standing Counsel. None for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI ORDER % 22.03.2017 ^ The Revenue's grievance in these two appeals is with respect to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which doubted the use of six comparables and remitted the matter for reconsideration of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). It is urged by learned counsel that both the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the TPO had made reasons and sent notices as to why six comparables had to beincluded for purposes ofALP determination. The Court has considered the submissions and- also the reasoning ofthe ITAT. There cannot be any doubt that the Revenue is Page I of2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified
not prejudiced as it is at liberty to argue all submissions which are not being foreclosed by the ITAT. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. iif". S. RAVENDRA BHAT, J // NAJMl WAZmi, J MARCH 22,2017/ajk Page 2 of2
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
