COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07 vs. RAY BAN SUN OPTICS INDIA LTD.GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA/942/2016HC DelhiDLHC01116751201615 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 noted that the ITAT's order of remand was based on the decision in LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT. However, this decision was no longer considered good law in light of the High Court's subsequent ruling in Sony Eriksson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT. Consequently, the High Court directed that the AO/TPO would have to consider the matter afresh in light of the Sony Eriksson decision. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-07, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated April 15, 2014. The ITAT had remanded the matter concerning Assessment Year 2009-10 to the Assessing Officer (AO) / Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The Revenue's appeal was filed with a delay of 105 days, which was condoned by the High Court. The High Court noted that the ITAT's decision was based on a Special Bench ruling in LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, which was subsequently overturned by the High Court in Sony Eriksson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT correctly remanded the matter to the AO/TPO in conformity with the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2013) 152 TTJ (Del) (SB) 273, concerning the Assessment Year 2009-10. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue is challenging the ITAT's order of remand. The judgment implies the Revenue is aggrieved by the ITAT's decision to remand the matter, likely seeking a different outcome or a decision on merits rather than a remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.942 of 2016

Page 1 of 2

$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 942/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar & Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates

versus

RAY BAN SUN OPTICS INDIA LTD.GURGAON..... Respondent

Through

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

15.05.2017

CM No. 47689/2016 1. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. The delay of 105 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.

ITA No. 942/2016 2. This is an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) dated 15th April, 2014 in ITA No. 672/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10.

3.

It is seen from the impugned order of the ITAT that the matter has been remanded to the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) / Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) in conformity with the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 2013 152 TTJ (Del) (SB) 273.

ITA No.942 of 2016

Page 2 of 2

4.

It is clarified that the said opinion of the ITAT no longer being good law in view of the decision of this Court in Sony Eriksson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118, the AO/TPO will have to consider the matter afresh in light of the said decision.

5.

The appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 15, 2017 tp

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →