AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT CRICLE 1 (1)

PDF · subscribers

ITA/570/2016HC DelhiDLHC01166661201602 November 2016Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of segregation of transactions had not been expressly urged by the parties in the appeal before it. Therefore, it directed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to consider on merits whether segregation or desegregation is the most appropriate approach. This consideration should be made having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances. The High Court also directed the TPO to keep in mind the view of the High Court in its various decisions, including the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Private Limited vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118. The appeals were disposed of in terms of this direction.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Agilent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., filed appeals before the High Court of Delhi against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeals concerned assessment years not explicitly stated in the judgment. The core issue revolved around the ITAT's direction for a remand of certain issues. The assessee contended that the ITAT, while remanding the matter, should not have expressed a distinct opinion on the necessity of segregating transactions. This segregation was relevant to the transfer pricing exercise undertaken by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The High Court noted that the question of segregation had not been expressly urged by the parties in the appeal before it.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while directing a remand of certain issues, ought to have expressed a distinct opinion on the issue of segregation of transactions, in relation to the transfer pricing exercise carried out by the TPO? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the ITAT should not have expressed a distinct opinion on the segregation of transactions while remanding the matter. The ITAT's observation on segregation was premature and potentially prejudicial to the assessee's case before the TPO. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue on this issue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~13 & 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 570/2016

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney and Mr.Shikhar Garg, Advs.

versus

DCIT CRICLE 1 (1)

..... Respondent Through: Mr.Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing counsel for Income Tax.

+ ITA 587/2016

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney and Mr.Shikhar Garg, Advs.

versus

DCIT CRICLE 1 (1)

..... Respondent Through: Mr.Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing counsel for Income Tax.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

O R D E R %

02.11.2016

The question of law urged by the assessee is that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “ITAT”) even while directing a remand of certain issue should not have expressed its opinion distinctively on the issue whether segregation of transaction

had to be carried out, while in the ail to determine vis-a-vis the transfer pricing exercise carried out by the TPO. 2. The record disclosed that the question of segregation had not been expressly urged in the appeal by the parties. Having regard to the record, we hereby directs the TPO to consider on the merits as to whether segregation or desegregation is the most appropriate, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances keeping in mind the view of this court in its various decisions including Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Private Limited vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118. 2. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 02, 2016 mr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →