THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TRAVELPORT INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS LTD.

$~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 239/2025, CM APPL. 44079/2025 & CM APPL. 44080/2025 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann, JSC & Ms.Aditi Sabharwal, Advocate.

versus

TRAVELPORT INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS LTD. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Vanshika Taneja, Adv. (VC) with Ms. Ishita Farsaiya and Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

24.07.2025 1. The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 27.09.2021 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue fairly states that in view of the judgment in “Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Travelport L.P. USA, [2023] 153 taxmann.com 176 (SC), the issue stands covered against the revenue herein. He also states that the appeals concerning Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2014-15 have been decided by this Court in ITA 718/2013 to ITA 731/2023 on 08.12.2023 against the Revenue. In this regard, he has placed before us the said order. The relevant part of the said order, paragraph 9 thereof, reads as under: 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 29/07/2025 at 12:45:10

“9. The moot point on merits which obtained in the appeals preferred by the appellant/revenue before the Tribunal was whether the view taken by CIT(A) that 15 percent of the profits earned from Indian operations could be attributed to the respondent/assessee was sustainable. The coordinate bench of AY 2006-07 while dealing with ITA 301/2022 has sustained the said conclusion and gone on to hold that no substantial question of law arose for its consideration. It is this decision which was affirmed by the Supreme Court with the dismissal of the SLP as noted hereinabove.”