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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/564/2016HC DelhiDLHC01178163201628 September 2016Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeals due to the unpersuasive reasons for delay. The court also noted that the issue of segregating embedded software for separate assessment was already decided against the revenue in a previous ruling.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed appeals with a significant delay, citing reasons such as reorganisation of the panel and difficulties during the e-filing transition. The court found these reasons unpersuasive.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned. The court also implicitly addressed the issue of whether embedded software can be segregated for separate assessment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

$~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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →