THE PR. COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. TECHBOOKS ELECTRONICS SERVICES PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1062/2018HC DelhiDLHC01172612201820 March 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court acknowledged the assessee's submission regarding the mean margin calculation and noted that the appellant's counsel had accepted this stand. Consequently, there would be no adverse tax impact.

What were the facts?

The assessee presented a chart showing that even excluding comparables, the mean margin was 2.62%, significantly lower than the 8.65% factored by the Transfer Pricing Officer. The appellant's counsel accepted this position.

What were the issues?

The core issue was the correct computation of the mean margin for transfer pricing purposes and its impact on the tax liability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned, but relates to Transfer Pricing provisions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1062/2018

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Parth Semwal, Advs.

versus

TECHBOOKS ELECTRONICS SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. S. Vasudevan, Mr. Devashish Jain, Mr. Karanjot Singh, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R %

20.03.2024 1. Upon hearing learned counsels for parties, we had on 31 January 2023 passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the respondent has placed for our consideration a chart from which it is sought to be pointed out that even if the mean margin as worked out from the comparables were to be excluded from consideration, the same would work to 2.62% whereas the 'Transfer Pricing Officer in the order of 24 June 2019 has factored the mean margin at 8.65%. Let a copy of the said chart be included on our digital record. Let Mr. Maratha, learned counsel representing the appellant, obtain instructions in the aforesaid light.”

2.

The aforesaid was observed by us bearing in mind the chart which had been placed for our consideration by learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee as also an order of the Transfer This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2024 at 11:43:21

Pricing Officer dated 24 June 2019 which had accepted the mean margin computation at the rate of 8.65%. 3. Mr. Maratha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the aforesaid stand has been duly accepted and consequently there would be no adverse tax impact. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal shall stand disposed of.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. MARCH 20, 2024/neha This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2024 at 11:43:21

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →