THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUBENI ITOCHU STEEL 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 ITAT had followed a previous ruling of the High Court of Delhi, which had confirmed the findings for an earlier assessment year (AY 2010-11) in the case of the same assessee. That prior High Court judgment had itself relied on an earlier decision in CIT v. Marubenni India Private Limited. Since the ITAT's order was based on established precedents from the High Court, the court found no new or substantial legal issue to be decided. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, nor were any specific sections of the Income Tax Act discussed in detail beyond the context of ALP adjustments.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, filed an appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) order for Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal challenged the ITAT's deletion of sums that were proposed to be taxed based on an Arm's Length Price (ALP) adjustment. The ITAT had based its decision on a previous ruling by the High Court of Delhi concerning the same assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 v. Marubeni Itochu Steel Pvt. Ltd. This prior High Court judgment, in turn, relied on an earlier ruling in CIT v. Marubenni India Private Limited.
What were the issues?
1. Whether a substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order concerning the deletion of sums sought to be taxed through an Arm's Length Price (ALP) adjustment for AY 2013-14. Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The ITAT's decision was based on previous High Court rulings. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue appealed the ITAT's order, challenging its findings regarding the ALP adjustment. The appeal implicitly argues that the ITAT erred in deleting the sums and that a substantial question of law is involved, warranting the High Court's intervention. The Revenue sought to overturn the ITAT's decision by demonstrating a substantial question of law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 376/2018
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6..... Appellant Through : Sh. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel and Sh. Tushar Gupta, Advocate.
versus
MARUBENI ITOCHU STEEL INDIA PVT. LTD...... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R %
04.04.2018
The Revenue’s appeal – for AY 2013-14, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (ITAT) impugned order questions its findings with respect to the deletion of sums that were sought to be taxed through an Arm’s Length Price (ALP) adjustment. The ITAT had followed the previous ruling of this Court which confirmed the findings for an earlier year AY 2010-11 in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 v. Marubeni Itochu Steel Pvt. Ltd. [ITA 129/2016, decided on 05.05.2016]. That judgment had relied upon a previous ruling in CIT v. Marubenni India Private Limited 277 CTR 189 (Delhi). No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J APRIL 04, 2018/ajk
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
