COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 NEW DELHI vs. PERFETTI VAN MELLE ICT B.V., GLOBAL BUSINESS PARK TOWER A

ITA-40-2023 (O 104 IN TH

COMMISSIO NEW DELHI PERFETTI V A, 1ST FLOOR CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

ONER OF INCOME TAX (INTE I Vs.

VAN MELLE ICT B.V., GLOBA R, MEHRAULI, GURGAON **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standin for the appellant/Revenue. Mr. Deepak Chopra, Advocate (t Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) d counsel for the Revenue has s ot fall within the ambit of Cir 2024 issued by the Central Board ary limit, as the same falls in ar No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. d counsel has taken this Court ar No.5/2024 to submit that the is AB AND HARYANA AT RH ITA-40-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.10.2024 ERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 . . . . Appellant AL BUSINESS PARK TOWER . . . . Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ng Counsel through VC) ) strenuously argued that the case rcular bearing No.9/2024 dated d of Direct Taxes on the basis of exception as per para 3.1 of t to clause l(ii) of para 3.1 of ssue involved in the present case

) 4 t t e d f f f e MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.16 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-40-2023 (O relates fall in t 3. Upon a finally Centre and An learned the said 4. Learned passed petition well as 5. We hav 6. Firstly, respond clause out of internat internat Double the que adequat (supra) O&M) Page 2 of 3 to Double Taxation Avoidance the exceptions. a pointed query raised by the Co adjudicated by the Supreme C of Excellence Private Limited v nr., reported in (2022) 3 SCC d counsel that the review petitio d judgment. d counsel appearing for the resp in review petition whereby ns and IAs have been dismissed on merits vide order dated 23.04 ve considered the submissions. as we accept the argument rai dent with regard to the case n l(ii) of para 3.1 which is only w disputes related to TDS/TCS tional taxation charges, wherein tional taxation charges with the e Taxation Avoidance Agreeme estions of law raised by the app tely answered by the Apex C . Agreement and would therefore ourt regarding issue having been Court in Engineering Analysis vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 321, it has been submitted by on has been filed with regard to pondent has passed on the order upon circulations, the review both on the ground of delay as 4.2024. ised by learned counsel for the not falling within exception to with respect to litigation arising matters in both domestic and n disputes relating to appeals of e applicability of provisions of ent would fall. Even otherwise, pellant in the present case stand Court in Engineering Analysis

e n s x y o r w s e o g d f f , d s MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.16 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-40-2023 (O 7. Review reason 8. Appeal 9. All pen

October 14, 202 Mohit goyal 1. Wheth 2. Wheth O&M) Page 3 of 3 w petitions having been already to further keep this case pending l is dismissed accordingly. nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ 24 her speaking/reasoned?

Y her reportable?

Y dismissed, we do not find any g for adjudication. posed of. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

y MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.16 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document