Case LawHigh Court › Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Exl...

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Exl Services.com India Pvt. Ltd

High Court 15 May 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Exl Services.com India Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
15 May 2017
Assessment year(s)
2006-07
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Exl Services.com India Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: The questions sought to be urged by the Revenue in this appeal are whether the ITAT erred on facts and in law (a) in excluding Vishal Information Technology Limited from the list of comparables for determination of arm’s length price and (b) whether the company engaged in the business of Knowledge P...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5 + ITA 329/2017 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior standing counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Junior standing counsel. versus EXL SERVICES.COM INDIA PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Himanshu Sinha with Ms. Vrinda Tulshan, Advocates. ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR % O R D E R15.05.2017 CM APPL 16641/2017 (For delay) 1. For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed. The delay of 80 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. ITA 329/2017 2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 25[th] July 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 4504/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 3. The questions sought to be urged by the Revenue in this appeal are whether the ITAT erred on facts and in law (a) in excluding Vishal Information Technology Limited from the list of comparables for determination of arm’s length price and (b) whether the company engaged in the business of Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) could be considered as comparable for the purpose of benchmarking the international transaction of an Assessee which is engaged in the business of Business Process Outsourcing (BPO). 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the impugned order of the ITAT, the Court is of the view that in view of the order of the ITAT it does not give rise to any substantial question of law which concerns either of the above issues. 5. The appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J MAY 15, 2017 Rm CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan