DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.

$~1 to 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 562/2016 & C.M.Nos.27855-27856/2016

DIRECTOR OF TNCOME TAX-I.

..... Appellant

versus

M/S HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD. ..... Respondent

+ ITA 563/2016 & C.M.Nos.27857-27858/2016

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-I

..... Appellant

versus

M/S HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD. ..... Respondent

+ ITA 564/2016 & C.M.No.27859/2016

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-I

..... Appellant

versus

M/S HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD. ..... Respondent

+ ITA 565/2016 & C.M.Nos.27860-27861/2016

DIRECTOR OF NCOME TAX-1

..... Appellant

versus

M/S HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD. ..... Respondent

Present: Mr.Dileep Shivpuri, senior standing counsel with Mr.Sanjay Kumar, junior standing counsel and Mr.Vikrant A.Maheshwari, Advocate for the appellant in all the matters.

Mr.Mayank Nagi, Advocate for the respondent in all the matters.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

O R D E R %

28.09.2016

These appeals by the revenue have been filed with a delay of

620 days. The grounds for condonation of delay are that there was reorganisation of the panel, that counsel did not hand over the files to the revenue’s officials upon their receiving them after such reorganisation and the difficulties it underwent on account of transition during the e-filing phase. These reasons are unpersuasive – they are similar to the reasons rejected in a number of other cases (see CIT vs. Dion Global Solutions Ltd. ITA no.765/2014 decided on 13.07.2015).

Furthermore, this court also notices that on the merits as to whether embedded software can be segregated for the purpose of separate assessment, is no longer res-integra and is the subject matter of a division bench ruling in Director of Income Tax vs. Ericsson, A.B. 343 ITR 470, against the revenue.

The appeals along with the pending applications are consequently dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 rb