Bentlynevadallc v. Commissionerof Income Tax(Internationaltaxation),Delhi-1

$-7 to 11 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 831/2017 & CM No. 36154/2017 BENTLYNEVADALLC Appellant Through;Mr. Sachit Jolly, Adv. versus COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONALTAXATION),DELHI-1 TAXATION),DELHI-1DELHI-1-1RespondentThrough:Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr.StandingCounsel with Mr. Gaurav, Adv. + ITA 832/2017 & CM No. 36156/2017 BENTLYNEVADALLC Through:Mr. Sachit Jolly, Adv. Appellant versus COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONALTAXATION),DELHI-IRespondentThrough:Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr.StandingCounsel with Mr. Gaurav, Adv. +ITA 833/2017 & CM No. 36159/2017 BENTLYNEVADALLC Through:Mr. SachitJolly,Adv. Appellant versus COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONALTAXATION),DELHI-1 TAXATION),DELHI-1DELHI-1-1RespondentThrough:Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr.StandingCounsel with Mr. Gaurav, Adv. +ITA 834/2017& CM No. CM No. No. 36162/2017BENTLY NEVADA LLC & CM No. CM No. No. 36162/2017 Through:Mr. Sachit Jolly, Adv. Appellant versus COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONALTAXATION),DELHI-1RespondentThrough:Mr.RuchirBhatia,Sr.StandingCounsel with Mr. Gaurav, Adv. +ITA 835/2017& CMNo. 36165/2017BENTLY NEVADA LLC Through:Mr. Sachit Jolly, Adv. Appellant versus COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONALTAXATION),DELHI-1Respondent'Through:Mr.RuchirBhatia,Sr.StandingCounsel with Mr. Gaurav, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVAORDER % 25.10.2017 Issue notice. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia,Senior Standing Counselacceptsnotice on behalfof respondent. In view of the order that we propose to pass, detailed facts arenot necessaryto mention. The Tribunal,vide impugnedorder dated27.01.2017, rejectedthe appeal before it. The grievances,inter-alia. in this appeal under Section 260(A)several questionsof law aresought to urge. However, it is highlighted that with respect to taxationof softwareincomeand attributionof incomebetweenhardwareaswell as software sales and services, the Tribunal has not returned anyfinding.ThispositionisnotdisputedbycounselfortheTribunal/respondent. In these circumstances,the Court is of the opinion that thematter should be remitted for afresh consideration by the Tribunal andthen return a specific finding on the above question (framed asQuestion No. H in the present appeal). If aggrieved, the appellant is atliberty to approach this Court under Section 260(A). In such event, the appellant's right to question or challenge thefinding in the impugned order as regards other aspects is reserved. The appeals are disposed of in terms of above. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of these batch appeals onthe question of law outlined above within three months as in the caseof 'GE Nuovo Pignone S.P.A. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(InternationalTaxation),Delhi-F,bearingITANos.622/2017,623/2017,630/2017, 631/2017, 632/2017,633/2017,658/2017 and676/2017 disposed of, vide its order dated 13.09.2017. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J OCTOBER 25, 2017 C SANJpEEVSACHDEVA,J