Pr. Commissionerof Incometax-06 Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel With Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocate v. Modi Apollo International Group (P) Ltd

$'^2&3*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA No. 477/2017+ITA No. 478/2017 PR. COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX-06AppellantThrough:Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocate.Versus MODI APOLLO INTERNATIONALGROUP(P) LTD. RespondentThrough;Mr.Neeraj Jain, Advocate withMr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Mr.Aditya Vohra,Advocates. CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDERo/o31.07.2017 C.M. No. 22517/2017 (exemption^ in ITA No. 477/2017 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions ITA Nos. 477/2017 & 478/2017 2. These are two appeals by the Revenue againstthe common order dated)30"^ November, 2016 by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal ('ITAT') inITA No. 223/Del/2011and ITA No. 5396/Del/2013for the AssessmentYears ('AY') 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. 3. At the outset,it requiresto be notedthat there are concurrentfindingsbyboth the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] as well as the ITANos.477/2017,478/2017 Signature Not Verified ITAT againstthe Revenueon the two main issues urged in these appeals.The firstis whetherapaymentmadeby the Assesseeto ApolloInternationalInc., USA (All) for evaluationof reports and course contentwas fee fortechnicalservices(FTS) and subjectto TDS under Section195 ofthe Act.The second concernsthe deletionof the addition made by the AssessingOfficer (AO) on account of royalty paymentto All by holding it to becapital in nature. 4. The concurrentfindingsofthe CIT (A) and the ITAT are that there wasno element of profit embedded in the reimbursementfor the evaluationundertakenand, therefore,it was not FTS. The ITAT also noted that notechnical were to render assistance for expertise/services requiredidentificationof candidatesfor admission.On the secondissue it was foundthatthe paymentofroyaltywas withreferenceto the grossfee collectedandtherewas no capitalelementinvolvedin it. 5. Havingheardthe learnedcounselfor the Revenue,the Court is satisfiedthat the above concurrent findings suffer from no legal infirmity. Nosubstantialquestionoflaw arisesfor consideration. 6. The appealsare dismissedbut in the circumstances,no orderas to costs. LIDHAR, J. JULY 31,2017/'awZj' ITA Nos.477/2017,478/2017 -rr 6PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.