Aginity India Technologiers P. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1
High Court
03 Feb 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Aginity India Technologiers P. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1
Date of order
03 Feb 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Aginity India Technologiers P. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
$~32
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
ITA 99/2017 & CM Nos.4174-75/2017
AGINITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIERS P. LTD...... AppellantThrough:Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Advocate.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%03.02.2017
1.Issue notice.Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate accepts notice onbehalf of the respondent.
2.The assessee in this appeal against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short ‘the Act’) questions the inclusion of three comparables i.e.E-Zest Solutions Ltd., Flextronics Software System Ltd. and PersistentSystems Ltd. These were introduced by the TPO and affirmed concurrentlyby the DRT and the ITAT. The assessee has also appealed inclusion of eightothercomparablesi.e.AvaniCincomTechnologiesLtd.,KALSInformation System Ltd., I Gate Global Solutions Ltd., Tata ELXSI Limited(Seg),Thirdware Solutions Ltd. (Seg-),Softsol India Ltd., InfosysTechnologies Ltd. and Wipro Ltd. (after excluding rental income etc.). Theground urged is that the ITAT’s affirmation of the DRT’s order and in turn
that Authorities’ orders are unreasoned as to the grounds urged before thisAppellate Authority.
3.This Court has considered the submissions and materials on recordand is of the opinion that even though the remit by the ITAT is justified, thelack of any reasoning by any Authority, as to the inclusion of thecomparables, would mean that the matter is open for the assessee and that itsright to contend that inclusion of such comparables is not in accordance withlaw, for the whatever grounds it chooses to urge are open.The ITAT’sorder is accordingly partly allowed and all rights and contentions of theparties are kept open in respect of all the comparables mentioned in thisorder.
4.The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
FEBRUARY 03, 2017sb
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.