The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Internationaltaxation -2 v. Mol Corporation

$~18 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 419/2019 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONALTAXATION -2..... Appellant ..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Ms. MansieJain, Advocates. versus % MOL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through:Mr. Nageswar Rao and Ms. DeepikaAgarwal, Advocates.Date of Decision: 19[th]May, 2022 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1.Present appeal has been filed by the revenue challenging the remandorder passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’). The relevantportion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow: “8. We, therefore, by considering the aforesaid referredto facts and by respectfully following the order dated26.09.2016ITANos.6089to6091/Del/2012and1969/Del/2014 in assessee’s own case set aside this issueback to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh inaccordance with law as has been directed in theaforesaid referred to order dated 26.09.2016.” 2.Learned counsel for the appellant/revenue submits that the ITATinstead of remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide the issueof royalty in accordance with the judgment of this Court in DIT versusInfrasoft Ltd. should have decided the issue itself. 3.It is pertinent to mention that after passing of the impugned ordersby the ITAT, the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre ofExcellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., 2021 SCCOnLine SC 159 has confirmed the view taken by this Court in DIT versusInfrasoft Ltd. 4.However, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue states that thematter on merits is not covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court inEngineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Needless tostate learned counsel for the respondent/assessee states that matter in issue issquarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in EngineeringAnalysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 5.In any event, in pursuance to the impugned remand orders, theAssessing Officer and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) have decided thematter. In fact, appeal of the assessee in second round is pending before theITAT. The ITAT in Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 in its order dated13[th]April, 2022 (passed during the pendency of the present appeals) has notonly followed the decision of the Supreme Court Engineering AnalysisCentre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd (supra) but has also followed the decisions ofthis Court dated 15[th]March, 2022 and 7[th]March, 2022 whereby the appealsfiled by the Revenue against the respondent/assessee on similar questions oflaw were dismissed. 6.Consequently, keeping in view the subsequent orders dated 14[th]February, 2022 and 13[th]April, 2022 deciding the issue of royalty passed bythe ITAT, this Court is of the view that the present appeal challenging theorders of remand and seeking a decision by the ITAT is infructuous. In fact,some of the cross-appeals filed by the respondent/assessee against the sameimpugned orders have today been dismissed as infructuous. MANMOHAN, J MAY 19, 2022AS MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J