Dismissed

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -09 v. Xchanging Technology Services India Pvt.Ltd.

Delhi HC19 Jan 2016ITA/36/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was dismissed. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's factual and merit-based decision to exclude M/s. Cosmic Global Ltd. as a comparable due to functional profile mismatches.

What did the court decide?

The Revenue's appeal against the ITAT's order was dismissed.

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -09 Vs Xchanging Technology Services… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

¶4

- ITA 36/2016

¶5

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -09 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing counsel.

¶6

versus

¶7

XCHANGING TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nageswar Rao and Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

¶9

O R D E R % 19.01.2016

¶10

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) is directed against an order dated 10^th June 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 5207/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2008-09.

¶11

At the outset, Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, states that for the earlier AY, i.e., 2007-08, this Court has, by an order dated 20^th October 2015 in ITA No. 813/2015, already dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. He, however, seeks to distinguish the said case from the present one only on one aspect, i.e., the exclusion of M/s. Cosmic Global

¶12

ITA No. 36 of 2016

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

Ltd. (‘CGL’) as a comparable by the Assessee before the ITAT, although the Assessee had itself included it at the stage of the proceedings before the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) as well as the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’).

¶15

A perusal of the impugned order of the ITAT reveals that the ITAT was conscious of this fact and proceeded to assess on merits whether the Assessee was justified in seeking the exclusion of CGL as a comparable. The ITAT has set out detailed reasons why the said plea of the Assessee was justified. Inter alia it was noticed that CGL’s functional profile did not match that of the Assessee and a substantial portion of its earnings was on account of translation charges whereas the Assessee was not in that line of business at all. This being a purely factual determination, the Court is not persuaded to hold that any substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT.

¶16

The appeal is dismissed.

¶17

S. MURALIDHAR, J

¶18

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶19

JANUARY 19, 2016 dn

¶20

ITA No. 36 of 2016

¶21

Page 2 of 2

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -09 v. Xchanging Technology Services India Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -09 v. Xchanging Technology Services India Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harpreet Singh & Anr. Vs Income Tax Department & Anr.

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs UOI and Ors.

Bharat Hotels Limited Vs the Commissioner Central Excise,Customs and Service Tax

Birbal Academy & Publications Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Joint Commissioner, Central, Excise and Service Tax, Delhi & Anr.

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-(CENTRAL-2) Vs Green Age Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

The Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-6 Vs M. Tech India P. Ltd.