The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Internationaltaxation -2 v. Travelport L.p. Usa

$~8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 301/2022 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONALTAXATION -2..... Appellant ..... Appellant Through:Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Senior StandingCounsel for the Revenue along withMr.Shlok Chandra, Junior StandingCounsel for Revenue. versus TRAVELPORT L.P. USA Through:None ..... Respondent %Date of Decision: 02[nd]September, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORAJ U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1.Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated9[th]November, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’)in ITA No. 6499/Del./2012 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2.Learned counsel for the Appellant-Revenue states that the ITAT haserred in holding that only 15% of the revenue is attributable to the assessee'sPE in India by mechanically applying the ratio of the judgment of DIT vs.Galileo International Inc., (2009) 180 Taxman 357 (Delhi) withoutappreciating that the facts of the instant case are different. ITA 301/2022 Page 1 of 3 3.Learned counsel for the Appellant-Revenue also contends that theITAT has failed to note that the substantial activities relating to the businessof the Assessee are carried out in India and accordingly entire bookingfees/revenue generated from India would be taxable in India. 4.He lastly states that the scenario has drastically changed after theAssessment Year 2007-08 as the orders passed for the subsequentAssessment years have extensively dealt with the facts and law. 5.A perusal of the paper book reveals that the ITAT has held that sinceno guidelines are available as to how much income of the Assessee-Respondent be reasonably attributable to India, the same has to bedetermined on the basis of the facts and judicial precedents. 6.In the present case, the ITAT and CIT(A) have held that out of severalactivities, the activities of Calleo Distribution Technologies Private Limitedin India were only in respect of generating request and receiving end-resultof the process. In other words, the computers at the desk of the travel agentin India were merely connected to the extent that they could perform abooking function but were not capable of processing the data of all theairlines together at once place. The ITAT also held that the Assessee has notdeployed any assets in India. 7.The ITAT in the present case not only relied upon the judgment ofthis Court in Galileo International (Supra) but also relied on the judgmentof its Coordinate Bench in Amadeus Global Travel I Distribution S.A. v.DCIT 113 TTJ 767. 8.In the impugned order, the ITAT held that the present case wassimilar to that of Galileo International (Supra) and that the CIT(A) rightlyattributed 15% of the revenue to the Respondent’s PE in India. In fact, the ITA 301/2022 Page 2 of 3 Appellant has not brought on record anything which differentiates the factsof this case with that of Galileo International (Supra). 9.Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for considerationin the present appeal and the same is dismissed.10.This Court clarifies that in the present proceeding, it cannot commenton the orders passed in the subsequent assessment years as the said ordersare not before this Court. However, it is directed that orders of thesubsequent assessment years shall be decided on their own merits. MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2022j/KA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J ITA 301/2022