Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. Steria India Ltd

$~7 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 762/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 ..... AppellantThrough:Mr.RahulChaudhary,SeniorStanding Counsel with Mr. SanjayKumar, Junior Standing Counsel. versus STERIA INDIA LTD. ..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Neeraj Jain and Mr. Aniket D.Aggarwal, Advocates. CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R%19.09.2017 CM APPL. 32592/2017 (delay in filing) 1. For the reasons as stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal iscondoned. The application is disposed of. ITA 762/2017 2. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘theAct’) filed by the Revenue against the order dated 4[th]November, 2016passedbytheIncomeTaxAppellateTribunal(‘ITAT’)inITANo.107/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2010-11. 3. The Revenue in the present appeal has urged the following questions oflaw: ITA 762/2017 “A. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case theITAT was correct in law in holding that the Assessee was notliable to withhold tax under section 195 of the Act on paymentsmade by it to Steria France for management services fee andconsequently deleting the disallowance made by Ld. AO undersection 40(a)(i) of the Act? B. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITATwas correct in law in holding that if a particular item is not part of'Export Turnover' when it cannot constitute a part of 'TotalTurnover' as well? C. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITATwas correct in law in excluding Tata Elxsi Ltd. as comparablestating that there is no separate information available of thiscompany relating to software development services when thecomparable company itself declares its income from 'softwaredevelopment services' and 'sales and support' segments separatelyin its annual reports? D. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITATwas correct in law in excluding E-infochips Bangalore Ltd. bystating that there is no separate information available of thiscompany relating to software development services and the detailsof income have been given in a consolidated manner alsoincluding IT enabled service segment when the comparable ITA 762/2017Page 2 of 3 company itself declares it as software development servicesprovider in its annual report at several places?” 4.As far as questions A and B are concerned, they stand answered againstthe Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the decision of this Courtdated 10[th]July, 2017 in ITA No. 380/2017 (Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax-8 v. Steria India Ltd.) in the Assessee’s own case for the AY2011-12. 5. As far as questions C and D are concerned, having heard learned counselfor the Appellant, the Court is not satisfied that the impugned order of theITAT, which has turned on facts, gives rise to any substantial question oflaw. 6. The appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. SEPTEMBER 19, 2017dk PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.