TRAVELPORT L.P., USA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers

ITA/302/2016HC DelhiDLHC01115580201609 November 2016Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law urged by the assessee in these appeals was identical to the question of law decided by the same Court in Director of Income Tax v. Galileo International Inc. (2009(2) TMI 497 (Delhi)). The Tribunal, in its impugned order, had also relied upon and followed this precedent. Consequently, the High Court found that the question of law urged by the assessee did not arise for fresh determination. The appeals were therefore dismissed on the basis that the matter was already concluded by a binding precedent. No specific relief was granted to the assessee, and no issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeals are filed by Travelport L.P., USA (the assessee) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is the Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-3, New Delhi. The appeals concern assessment years not explicitly stated in the provided text. The core of the matter is a question of law that the assessee urged before the High Court. The ITAT, in its impugned order, had relied upon and followed a previous decision of the Delhi High Court in Director of Income Tax v. Galileo International Inc. The High Court noted that the question of law urged by the assessee in these appeals was identical to that decided in the Galileo International Inc. case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the question of law urged by the assessee arises for consideration, given that it is identical to a question previously decided by this Court in Director of Income Tax v. Galileo International Inc. (2009(2) TMI 497 (Delhi)). Assessee's Contention: The assessee urged a question of law in these appeals. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not present any specific arguments in the provided text. However, the High Court's decision implies that the revenue likely contended that the issue was already settled by the Galileo International Inc. precedent. The judgment records no argument for the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$-1, 18 19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 302/2016 TRAVELPORT L.P., USA Appellant Through Mr Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate and Mr Prakash Kumar, Adv. versus COMMIS SIGNER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr. Vikrant A Maheshwari, Adv. With + ITA 298/2016 TRAVELPORT L.P., USA Appellant Through Mr Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate and Mr Prakash Kumar, Adv. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3, NEW DELHI Respondent Through Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr. Vikrant Maheshwari, Adv. And + ITA 299/2016 TRAVELPORT L.P., USA Appellant Through Mr Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate and Mr Prakash Kumar, Adv. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

TAXATION -3 NEW DELHI R6spondent Through Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr. Vikrant A Maheshwari, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI ORDER % 09.11.2016 The question of law urged by the assessee in these appeals is identical to what was decided by this Court in Director of Income Tax v. Galileo International Inc. 2009(2) TMI 497 (Delhi). In fact, the ITAT, by the impugned order, has relied upon and followed that decision. The question of law urged does not arise. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NAJMJAVAZIRI, J NOVEMBER 09,2016/acm

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →