Disposed

Fritidsresor Tours&Travels India Pvt. Ltd. v. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Delhi HC7 Dec 2016ITA/380/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the income tax appeal as the remand outcome resulted in no addition. However, to prevent future adverse reliance, the Court clarified that the ITAT's observations on expenses are not binding for subsequent years.

What did the court decide?

Court clarified that ITAT's observations on expenses are not binding for later years and authorities must consider the matter independently.

Fritidsresor Tours&Travels India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Deputy… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ITA 380/2016

¶4

FRITIDSRESOR TOURS&TRAVELS INDIA PVT LTD... Appellant Through: Mr. Neeraj Jain with Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

¶9

¶10

O R D E R 07.12.2016

¶11

The question of law urged by the appellant is “whether the expenditure incurred by the appellant towards payment to third parties in the circumstances was liable to be excluded in the ALP determination under the Cost Plus Method”.

¶12

At the outset, counsel for the revenue points out that pursuant to the remand by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which led to the determination of the issue that the transactions between the appellant and the AE were on principal to principal basis and that based on this conclusion and the facts presented before him, the TPO and later the AO finalized the assessment. This apparently led to non-adjustment for the year under consideration, i.e., AY 2006-07.

¶13

Counsel for the appellant submits that the conclusions drawn by

¶14

the ITAT in the impugned order with respect to the nature of expenses incurred and their inclusion would in all likelihood have a long term adverse impact for later years. He relied upon paragraph 7.36 of the OECD Guidelines and the decision of this Court in M/s Li & Fung India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2014) 361 ITR 85 (Del.) to say that the ITAT had applied the wrong principle in this regard.

¶15

This Court is of the opinion that since the ultimate outcome of the remand has resulted in no addition, the examination of the issued urged would be an academic exercise. At the same time, the Court is conscious of the fact that left undisturbed, the ITAT’s observations may constitute a barrier and work adversely against the assessee in later years. In the circumstances, it is clarified that the observations of the ITAT shall not be binding and taken as conclusive for later years and that the TPO/AO shall consider the matter independently.

¶16

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶17

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶18

NAJMI WAZIRI, J

¶19

DECEMBER 07, 2016 /vikas/

Fritidsresor Tours&Travels India Pvt. Ltd. v. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fritidsresor Tours&Travels India Pvt. Ltd. v. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smart Cube India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Jagdish Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Pr Cit -7 Vs Rites Ltd.

Kedia (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs

Technico Agri Sciences Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Sikander Lal Kumar Pro.M/S Sikander Lal Rakesh Kumar & Co. Vs Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-9