Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 8, Delhi v. Mis. Sojitz India Private Limited

$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 28/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 8, DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing Counsel. Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Jr. Standing Counsel. versus MIS. SOJITZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ved Kr. Jain with Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % O R D E R10.01.2017 The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which followed the previous orders for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The assessee had for assessment years 2011-12 relied upon its transfer pricing report which had indicated that no such transfer pricing adjustments were necessary having regard to the data reported. The assessee carried out trading activities as well as indenting activities both in its AEsand unrelated parties. The Transfer Pricing Officer after considering the materials on record determined the ALP having regard to the unrelated businesses. In other words, for trading activities, the rate of commission applicable for indenting business was followed and vice versa. This approach was corrected by the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) and affirmed by the ITAT. At the outset, it was pointed out that the ITAT’s impugned order is in tune with the judgment of this Court in Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 387 ITR 611. In view of this discussion, no substantial question of law arises; the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J JANUARY 10, 2017 /vikas/ NAJMI WAZIRI, J