Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 9 v. Tevapharm India Pvt. Ltd

$~39 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 816/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 9 ..... Appellant Through:Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior StandingCounsel. versus TEVAPHARM INDIA PVT. LTD. Through:None. ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R%19.09.2017 CM APPL. 34347/2017 (delay in filing) and CM APPL. 34348/2017-(delay in refiling) in ITA 816/2017 1. For the reasons as stated in the applications, the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal is condoned. The applications stand disposed of. ITA 816/2017 2. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘theAct’) by the Revenue against the order dated 25[th]August, 2016 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.7584/Mum/2012 forthe Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2008-09. 3. Two issues have been urged by the Revenue for consideration. The firstconcerns the omission by the ITAT of Celestial Labs Ltd. from the list ofcomparables. As far as this issue is concerned, the Court finds that the ITAT ITA 816/2017 has itself undertaken a detailed analysis of the functional profile of the testedcompany vis-a-vis that of the comparable and has given cogent reasons forexcluding the said comparable. The Court is not persuaded to hold that thisfactual finding is perverse. It accordingly declines to frame a question onthis issue. 4. The second issue concerns treating the expenditure incurred on softwarelicenses as revenue expenditure. The decision of this Court in CIT v. AsahiIndia Safety Glass Ltd. [2011] 245 CTR 529 (Del) answers this very issueagainst the Revenue. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special LeavePetition filed by the Revenue against the said decision on 5[th]July, 2012. Inview of that matter, the Court declines to frame a question on this issue aswell. 5. The appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2017dk PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.