Delhi High Court
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, ... vs Freescale Semiconductor India ... on 14 September, 2021
$~27-28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 14.09.2021
+ ITA 839/2018
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,
NEW DELHI ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC.
versus
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR INDIA PVT. LTD. (NOW
KNOWN AS NXP INDIA PVT. LTD.) ..... Respondent
Through Mr.S.S.Tomar, Mr.Vishal
Kalra, Advs.
+ ITA 840/2018
PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,
NEW DELHI ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.SC.
versus
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR INDIA PVT. LTD. (NOW
KNOWN AS NXP INDIA PVT. LTD.) ..... Respondent
Through Mr.S.S.Tomar, Mr.Vishal
Kalra, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
The hearing has been conducted through of video conferencing.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
16.09.2021 15:10:04
1. ITA No. 839 of 2018 has been filed by the appellant in
challenge to the Order dated 07.12.2017 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I-1', New Delhi (hereinafter referred
to as the 'ITAT'), in ITA No. 2589/Del/2015, primarily challenging the
direction to exclude the Infosys Limited as a comparable for the
respondent for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
2. ITA No. 840 of 2018 has been filed by the appellant
challenging the Order dated 07.12.2017 passed by the ITAT, in ITA
No. 2427/Del/2015, directing exclusion of Kals Information System
Limited, Infosys Limited and Wipro Limited as a comparable for the
respondent for the Assessment Year 2008-09.
3. For all the above exclusions, the ITAT has relied upon its Order
dated 31.10.2014 passed in respondent's own assessment for the
Assessment Year 2007-08.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appeal,
being ITA No. 613 of 2015, filed by the appellant, for the Assessment
Year 2007-08, was dismissed by this Court vide its Order dated
19.08.2015. The learned counsel for the appellant could not deny the
said position.
5. The relevant extract from the Order dated 19.08.2015 of this
court is as under:
"4. The question that is urged by the
Revenue is whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case the ITAT has erred
in directing to exclude 10 comparables
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
16.09.2021 15:10:04
considered by the Transfer Pricing Officer
(TPO) for computing the adjustment amount of
the Arm's Length Price (ALP) and restoring
four comparables like Accel Transmatic Ltd.,
E-zest solutions, Ishir Infotech Ltd. and Helios
& Matheson Information Technologies Ltd to
the file of AO for consideration?
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant has
taken us through the impugned orders of the
CIT(A) and ITAT. Having perused the reasons
given by the ITAT for excluding the 10
comparables, the Court finds that the said
order suffers from no legal infirmity when
viewed in the light of Rule 10B (4) of the
Income Tax Rules, 1962 and the legal position
explained by this Court in its decision in
Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt.
Ltd. v. D.C. of Income Tax (2015) 277 CTR
(Del) 137. No substantial question of law
arises. The appeal is dismissed."
6. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present appeals as
no substantial question of law arises. The appeals are dismissed.
The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the
order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MANMOHAN, J
SEPTEMBER 14, 2021
RN/P
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
16.09.2021 15:10:04
