This Court Has Considered The Submissions. The Itat Followedthe Reasoning Of The Supreme Court In 'Excel Industries (Supra) Andalso The Judgment In Cit v. No Substantial Question Of Law Arises. The Appeal Is Accordinglydismissed. •

'■$~2,'-- '- ' _;.f • '/. ; '■ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEVV DELHI +•; , ITA 124/2017' -y.,y' -'} . -. THE PR. COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME TAX-4....; Appellant " , , Through :' SK. Puneeit Rai, Advocate! versus. ^- C ; ICON SATELLITE & TELECOM PVT. LTD. SATELLITE & TELECOM PVT. LTD. & TELECOM PVT. LTD. TELECOM PVT. LTD. PVT. LTD. LTD. . : : -ICON SATELLITE & TELECOM PVT. LTD. SATELLITE & TELECOM PVT. LTD. & TELECOM PVT. LTD. TELECOM PVT. LTD. PVT. LTD. LTD. . : : ! Respondent CORAM: : ' . - Through: None. - "V: - ; ' . . - , . "'.y.HpNVBLE MR, JUSTICE S. RAVINPRA BHAT MR, JUSTICE S. RAVINPRA BHAT JUSTICE S. RAVINPRA BHAT S. RAVINPRA BHAT RAVINPRA BHAT BHAT ' : " HpNVBLE MR, JUSTICE S. RAVINPRA BHAT MR, JUSTICE S. RAVINPRA BHAT JUSTICE S. RAVINPRA BHAT S. RAVINPRA BHAT RAVINPRA BHAT BHAT HdN'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI - ': : ' ORDER y. . ? ' '_ ' -()3.03:2017 / ^ ^ ' % ^ t,i96i ; (hereafter "the Aet"), the Revenue is . aggrieved by the order of the .Income Tax Appellate Tribunal' (ITAT) for' AY 2009-10. The' question' of laiw .urged is with. respect to the genuineness of. the- discount'oL?l',07,87,411/-provided to a. related party, i.e. a sister.,eoficem in respect of its sales denoting it to be of the volumer The: value, of the transactions with the: related.yarty, i.e. The said sister, ' ' edncem was to the tune of ?232.67 crores; The total sales, turnover of ". the assessee was 11,91,60,610/^. The Assessing oiffieef (AO) hadadded, back the said amount of ?1,07,87,411/-. under Section. .40A(2)(b) of the Act. The GIT(A) jprpvided relief on the third, ground, . ';-that the addition was- reyenue neutral. The .Reyenue appealed to. the ITAT which relied upon the judgrhpnt of the Supreme Court in CITv..; Excel Industries Limited (2013) .358 ITR 295 (SCj. It~also^.end6rsed - Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedBy:AMULYA . a the, view of CIT(A) who had relied upon CIT y. Gautam Motors 2011(334) ITR 326 (Del). , , ' ' -Learned counsel urges that a substantial question of law arisesand that the ITAT fell into error because it ignored two salientaspects, i.e. that the discount was so arranged as to have the least taximpact on both the sister concerns, i.e. related parties of the assessee.On this, if is urged that the discounts were given only in respect oftransaction aggregating at ?1,07,87,411/- -out of a total amount of?232.67 crores. The second aspect urged is that no explanatioft was• * *'forthcoming about why a similar discount was not given to similarparties for previous years. These two aspects stood out ' in theassessee's case, justifying the addition under Section 40A. , This Court has considered the submissions. The ITAT followedthe reasoning of the Supreme Court in 'Excel Industries (supra) andalso the judgment in CIT v. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P)iLtd. 2010 (195)Taxmann 35. The lack of any scrutiny by the AO as to the nature ofdiscounts provided to third parties, in our opinion, justified theITAT's conclusions that in the circumstances of the case, thedisallowance made under Section 40A could not be sustained. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is accordinglydismissed. • S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NAJMI WAZIRI, J MARCH 03,2017/ajk -