PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. AVAYA INDIA PVT.LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/473/2017HC DelhiDLHC01221314201728 July 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT. The Court noted that the present case involved similar issues as previous appeals for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09, where the Revenue's appeals against the ITAT's orders were dismissed by the High Court. Based on this precedent and the lack of a substantial question of law in the current appeal, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The specific findings of the ITAT on the inclusion/exclusion of comparables are not detailed, as the High Court's decision rests on the absence of a substantial question of law, not on the merits of the transfer pricing adjustment itself. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated October 30, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 2298/DEL/2014 for Assessment Year 2009-10. The core issue in the appeal relates to the inclusion or exclusion of comparable companies for transfer pricing adjustments concerning international transactions in the software development and ITE service segments of the Assessee, Avaya India Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue noted that similar issues for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 had been decided by the ITAT, and appeals filed by the Revenue against those decisions were dismissed by the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order concerning the inclusion/exclusion of comparables for transfer pricing adjustments in the software development and ITE service segments for AY 2009-10. Assessee's Contentions: The Assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's contentions are not explicitly detailed, but the appeal itself is based on the premise that the ITAT's order raises a substantial question of law regarding the transfer pricing adjustments. The Revenue likely argued for the inclusion or exclusion of specific comparables, impacting the transfer pricing adjustment. The judgment implies that the Revenue sought to challenge the ITAT's decision on this matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 473/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocate. versus AVAYA INDIA PVT.LTD. .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 28.07.2017 1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) is against an order dated 30th October, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.2298/DEL/2014 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2009-10. 2. The issue urged by the Revenue in this appeal concerns the inclusion/exclusion of comparables for the purposes of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of international transactions, in the software development segment and the ITE service segment, carried on by the Assessee in the concerned AY. 3. In respect of the same Assessee, the ITAT had earlier passed orders dated 17th June, 2016 in ITA No.146/Del/2013 for AY 2008-09 and 18th

September, 2015 in ITA No.5528/Del/2011 for AY 2007-08. The appeals filed by the Revenue against the aforementioned orders for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 were dismissed by this Court by order dated 15th August, 2016 in ITA No. 235/2016 and by order dated 16th May, 2017 in ITA No. 838/2016 respectively. 4. The present case involves similar issues. The Court finds no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of ITAT. 5. The appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. JULY 28, 2017 srb

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →