CORNING S.A. vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

ITA/360/2016HC Delhi03 June 20162 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court admitted the appeal for hearing, but confined the notice to two specific questions. The Court allowed the application for condonation of delay in re-filing. The judgment does not record any findings or decisions on the merits of the two questions framed. The matter was adjourned for further hearing. Therefore, no specific findings on the issues, reasoning, or ratio decidendi are available in this order. The operative directions were limited to admitting the appeal on the specified questions and listing it for further hearing.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Corning S.A., filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed with a delay in re-filing, for which an application was made and allowed. The High Court issued notice on the appeal, confined to two specific questions. The Revenue, represented by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, accepted notice. The appeal was listed for further hearing on a future date.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in remanding the issue relating to the determination of the Most Appropriate Method for computation of Arm's Length Price (ALP) to the Assessing Officer (AO)/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that abnormal custom duty expenditure incurred by the Appellant does not require adjustment while computing operating profit margin of the Appellant for benchmarking analysis applying Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM)? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 3. +

ITA 360/2016

CORNING S.A.

..... Appellant Through: Mr Nageswar Rao and Mr Parth, Advocates.

versus

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing counsel for Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing counsel.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

03.06.2016 CM No.22937/2016 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM No.22938/2016 2. For the reasons stated herein, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

ITA 360/2016 4. Notice confined to the questions (a) whether the Tribunal erred in remanding issue relating to determination of the Most Appropriate Method for computation of Arm's Length Price to the file of AO/TPO? and (b) Whether 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 04/04/2026 at 21:42:43

Tribunal erred in holding that abnormal custom duty expenditure incurred by Appellant does not require adjustment while computing operating profit margin of the Appellant for benchmarking analysis applying Transaction Net Margin Method ('TNMM')?

Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing counsel accepts notice for the Revenue.

List on 21st November, 2016.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUNE 03, 2016 MK 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 04/04/2026 at 21:42:43

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →