Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax -1 v. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd
High Court
18 Jul 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax -1 v. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd
Date of order
18 Jul 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax -1 v. Alcatel Lucent India Ltd, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 2.The question urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in directing the TPO to exclude M/s.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, no orders as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI47 + ITA 515/2017
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel
versus
ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LTD.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr Himanshu Sinha and Mr Manan Jain, Advocates
CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
O R D E R
% 18.07.2017
1.This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 24[th] August, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 6856/Del/2015 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2011-2012.
2.The question urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in directing the TPO to exclude M/s. E-Infochips Ltd., M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., M/s. Persistent Systems Ltd., M/s. Infosys Limited, Saxo India Ltd. and Zylog Ltd. from the list of comparables for the purposes of determination of the arms length price of the international transaction on account of functional dissimilarity when compared with the Assessee?
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court find that the ITAT has assigned clear and cogent reasons that the above entities should
be excluded from the list of comparables. The findings are factual and based on proper analysis and does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, no orders as to costs.
S.MURALIDHAR, J
JULY 18, 2017 rd
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, 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.