Pr.commissioner Of Income Tax -09 v. Toluna India Pvt.ltd

$~4&5 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 393/2016 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -09 Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. StandingCounsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. versus TOLUNA INDIA PVT.LTD . Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal,Mr. Rohit Kumar Gupta and Ms. Monika Ghai,Advocates. + ITA 394/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-09 Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. StandingCounsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. versus TOLUNA INDIA PVT.LTD . PVT.LTD . . RespondentThrough: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal,Mr. Rohit Kumar Gupta and Ms. Monika Ghai,Advocates.: CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARJUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI ORDER %29.07.2016 CM No. 25181/2016 (Exemption! in ITA 393/2016 1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Signature Not Verified ITA 393/2016 & 394/2016 CM No. 25182/2016 (condonation of delay in re-filing) in ITA 393/2016 I ^TV/I ^1 ^ — 1 <• A -- .CM No. 25183/2016 (condonation of delay in re-filing) in ITA 394/2016 2. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. 3. The applications are allowed. ITA Nos. 393/2016 & 394/2nif^ 4. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue against a common order dated2June, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') inITA No. 6407/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2008-09, and ITANo. 989/Del/20I4 for the AY 2009-10. The Revenue is aggrieved by theITAT directing the Assessing Officer ('AO') to exclude following fourcomparables from the list of comparables for the purpose of determinationof the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions involvingthe Assessee and its Associated Enterprise; (i) Infosys Technologies Ltd; (ii) KALS Information Systems Ltd. (Segmental); (iii) Tata Elxsi Ltd. (Software Development and Services Segment); and (iv) Wipro Ltd. (IT Services Segment). 5. The ITAT, in giving the above direction, has followed the order passed for the earlier AY i.e. 2007-08, which does not appear to have beenchallenged by the Revenue. On the question of exclusion of the abovecomparables, the Court finds that given the scale of operations of the above entities, their exclusion from the list of comparables for the puiposes ofdetermination of ALP appears justified. 6. No substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of theITAT. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. s. muraLidhar, j JULY 29, 2016kk NAJMl/WAZIRI, J