Full Text
Translation output
0)
I-/ $-13& 14 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA1413/2018
THE PR.COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX-4 Appellant
Throughi Mr.RuchirBhatia,Advocate
I-/ $-13& 14 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA1413/2018
THE PR.COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX-4 Appellant
Throughi Mr.RuchirBhatia,Advocate
VERSUS
M/S GRANITE SERVICESINTERNATIONALINDIAPVT.LTD.
Respondent
Through: Mr.SachitJolly,Mr.RohitGarg and Mr.Siddharth Joshi,Advocates.
Respondent
Through: Mr.SachitJolly,Mr.RohitGarg and Mr.Siddharth Joshi,Advocates.
ITA 1438/2018
THEPR.COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX-4 Appellant
Through: Mr.RuchirBhatia,Advocate
THEPR.COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX-4 Appellant
Through: Mr.RuchirBhatia,Advocate
VERSUS
M/S GRANITE SERVICESINTERNATIONALINDIAPVT.LTD.
Respondent
Through: Mr.SachitJolly,Mr.RohitGarg and Mr.Siddharth Joshi,Advocates.
Respondent
Through: Mr.SachitJolly,Mr.RohitGarg and Mr.Siddharth Joshi,Advocates.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
ORDER o/o 20.05.2019 CM APPL.51619/2018in ITA 1413/2018&CM APPL.52106/2018in
ORDER o/o 20.05.2019 CM APPL.51619/2018in ITA 1413/2018&CM APPL.52106/2018in
ITA 1438/2018(delay in re-filing appeal!
1.Forthereasons explained inthe application,the delay in filingthe appeal is condoned and the application is allowed.
2019:DHC:7404-DB
1.Forthereasons explained inthe application,the delay in filingthe appeal is condoned and the application is allowed.
2019:DHC:7404-DB
TTA 1413/2018&ITA 1438/2018
2.TheseareappealsbytheRevenueagainsttheorderdated4^*^August2017 oftheITAT inITA No.l486/Del/2015 forthe AssessmentYear 2010-2011 and the order dated 12* September 2017 passed by the ITAT m ITA
No.532/Del/2016forthe AssessmentYear2011-2012.
2.TheseareappealsbytheRevenueagainsttheorderdated4^*^August2017 oftheITAT inITA No.l486/Del/2015 forthe AssessmentYear 2010-2011 and the order dated 12* September 2017 passed by the ITAT m ITA
No.532/Del/2016forthe AssessmentYear2011-2012.
JUDGMENT
3. The issues sought to be urged by the Revenue in both these appeals concern the legality of the ITAT including and excluding certain comparables and also remanding certain comparables to the TPO for the purposeofdeterminationofArm'sLengthPriceofinternationaltransactions involvingtheRespondent-Assessee. Intheconsidered view oftheCourtthe aboveordersoftheITATdonotgiveriseto anysubstantialquestionoflaw.
4. The appeals are dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR,J. I.S.MEHTA,J. MAY 20,2019 sr