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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/838/2016HC DelhiDLHC01287626201616 May 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the exclusion of the comparable company by the ITAT, for the reasons stated in its order, did not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Court examined the impugned order of the ITAT in light of Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No specific finding was made on the merits of the exclusion itself, as the court's decision was based on the absence of a substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated June 17, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 146/Del/2013. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2008-09 and concerns the determination of the arm's length price (ALP) of international transactions involving Avaya India Pvt. Ltd. (Assessee) in the software development and IT-enabled services segments. The core of the dispute revolves around the exclusion of a particular comparable company in the ALP analysis.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the exclusion of a comparable company in determining the arm's length price of international transactions in the software development and IT-enabled services segments for AY 2008-09 gives rise to a substantial question of law? (Question of law, turning on Section 92C and Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962). Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any contentions made by the Assessee. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT's exclusion of the comparable company was erroneous and gave rise to a substantial question of law, which warranted interference by the High Court under Section 260A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 92C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 7 +

ITA 838/2016

PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1..... Appellant Through:Mr Sanjay Kumar and Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates

versus

AVAYA INDIA PVT. LTD,

..... Respondent

Through: None

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

16.05.2017

1.

The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 17th June, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 146/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2008-09.

2.

The question urged before this Court concerns the exclusion of one comparable in determining the arm's length price of the international transaction involving the Assessee for the AY under consideration in the software development segment and ITE service segment.

3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, and having carefully

ITA 838/2016

Page 1 of 2

examined the impugned order of the ITAT in light of Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 the Court is unable to be persuaded that the exclusion of the comparables for the reasons set out in the impugned order of the ITAT gives rise to any substantial question of law.

4.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 16, 2017 rd

ITA 838/2016

Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 92C

All 1,769 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →