Delhi High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - ... vs Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd on 7 February, 2025
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 31/2025 & CM APPL. 7418/2025
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL
TAXATION -1 .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC.
versus
ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LTD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vishal Kalra, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 7th February, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGEMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J: (ORAL)
1. Cause shown is sufficient. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Delay of 288 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
2. The application stands disposed of.
3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in respect of the respondent/Assessee for the
Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.
4. At the outset, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel
appearing for the revenue brings attention of this Court to para 2 of the
appeal wherein substantial questions of law have been framed by the
appellant, which reads thus:-
"2.1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld.
ITAT erred in holding that assessee company does not have existence of
dependent PE in India/fixed place PE in India?
2.2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld.
ITAT erred in holding that the case of the assessee company squarely coved
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in DIT v. Morgan Stanley Co [2007] 292 ITR
416 (SC) and not the exception, stipulated in the said judgment and hence
nothing further is attributable to the assessee's PE in India despite that fact
that Adobe India is performing functions which are wider in scope than
what is mentioned in the agreement between the two entities and the TP
Study Report of Adobe India?
2.3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld.
ITAT erred in deleting the addition made on account of attribution of profit
to its PE in India on the basis of lack of information, disregarding the fact
that assessee has not discharged its primary onus to provide the information
and date required for ascertaining the proportion of receipts of the PE
which were not covered under the Transfer Pricing study report or not
subjected to arm's length pricing?
2.4 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld.
ITAT has erred in not following the directions of Supreme Court in case of
DIT v. Morgan Stanley Co where onus has been placed on assessee to place
the data on the basis of which it had to be determined whether all the risk
taking functions of the PE have been remunerated at arm's length?
2.5 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld.
ITAT has erred in not passing a speaking order on whether Adobe India
constitutes a PE of Adobe Ireland.
2.6 Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, and in law, the Ld.
ITAT erred in not appreciating the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that the facts
of the case indicate a Double Irish Model of corporate structuring aimed at
tax avoidance?"
5. Mr. Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel fairly states that the
substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are no more res integra and
has been decided against the appellant/revenue by the judgements passed by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax -
International Taxation-1 vs. Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd.; 2025
SCC OnLine Del 411 and batch matters. The parties in the aforesaid batch
matters and the present appeals are the same, except that, in those appeals,
the AYs were for the years from 2013 till 2017, whereas in the present
appeal, the AY pertains to 2020-2021.
6. Predicated thereon, he candidly submits that no substantial question of
law is made out in the present appeal.
7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the present appeal is unmerited and is disposed of alongwith pending
applications.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
FEBRUARY 7, 2025/rl
