Full Text
ITA 393/2016
PR.COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX-09 Appellant
Through:Mr.Dileep Shivpuri,Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Sanjay Kumar,Advocate.
Through:Dr.Rakesh Gupta,Mr.Somil Agarwal, Mr.RohitKumar Gupta and Ms.Monika Ghai, Advocates.
PR.COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX-09 Appellant
Through:Mr.Dileep Shivpuri,Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Sanjay Kumar,Advocate.
Through:Dr.Rakesh Gupta,Mr.Somil Agarwal, Mr.RohitKumar Gupta and Ms.Monika Ghai, Advocates.:
29.07.2016 CM No.25181/2016(Exemption!in ITA 393/2016
1.Allowed subjectto alljustexceptions.
2016:DHC:8499-DB 2/ CM No.25182/2016(condonation ofdelayin re-filing)inITA393/2016
■^TV/I ^1 ^ — 1 <• A -- .
CM No.25183/2016(condonation ofdelayin re-filing)inITA394/2016
ORDER
2. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned.
3. The applications are allowed. ITA Nos.393/2016&394/2nif^
4. These aretwo appealsfiled bythe Revenue againstacommon order dated 2 June,2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(TTAT')in ITA No.6407/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year('AY')2008-09,and ITA No. 989/Del/20I[4] for the AY 2009-10. The Revenue is aggrieved by the ITAT directing the Assessing Officer ('AO') to exclude following four comparables from the list ofcomparables for the purpose ofdetermination ofthe ArmsLength Price(ALP)ofthe international transactions involving the Assessee and its Associated Enterprise;
(i) Infosys Technologies Ltd;
(ii)KALSInformation SystemsLtd.(Segmental); (iii)Tata Elxsi Ltd.(Software Development and Services Segment); and (iv)Wipro Ltd.(IT Services Segment).
5. The ITAT,in giving the above direction,has followed the order passed for the earlier AY i.e. 2007-08, which does not appear to have been challenged by the Revenue. On the question of exclusion of the above comparables,the Courtfinds that given the scale ofoperations ofthe above ITA393/2016&394/2016 Page2of[3] entities, their exclusion from the list ofcomparables for the puiposes of determination ofALPappearsjustified.
6. No substantial question oflaw arises from the impugned order ofthe ITAT.Theappealsare,accordingly,dismissed. s.muraLidhar,j JULY 29,2016 kk NAJMl/WAZIRI,J ITA 393/2016&394/2016 Page 3 of[3]