IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 662/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Appellant Through: Mr.Deepak Anand, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr.Standing Counsel. versus M/S AVERY DENNISON INDIA PVT.LTD. Respondent Through: Mr.Vishal Kalra, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH ORDER 23.07.2019 CM APPL. 32141/2019 (delay) in ITA 662/2019 1. For reasons explained in application, delay in filing appeal is condoned and application is allowed. ITA 662/2019 2. This is Revenue appeal against order dated 29th October 2018 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.5404/Del/2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 3. issue sought to be urged by Revenue is whether ITAT erred in deleting addition made by Assessing Officer (AO) without considering findings of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on issue ITA 662/2019 Page 1 of 4 of determining Arm s Length Price (ALP) of international transactions involving Assessee and its Associated Enterprises (AEs). 4. There is long line of precedents involving same Assessee concerning earlier AYs. As far as AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11 are concerned very same issue regarding determination of ALP of international transactions involving Assessee was decided by this Court against Revenue and in favour of Assessee. Special Leave Petitions filed by Revenue thereagainst are stated to be pending in Supreme Court. 5. However, for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 ITAT appears to have remanded matter to TPO for fresh determination. As far as ITAT s order for AY 2013-14 is concerned Assessee came in appeal to this Court by filing ITA No.219 of 2019. While disposing of Assessee s appeal vide order dated 8th March 2019 this Court clarified that TPO will pass fresh order for AY 2013-14 uninfluenced by observations made by ITAT for AY 2012-13. 6. It is accordingly pointed out by learned counsel for Assessee appearing on advance notice that these two AYs i.e. 2012-13 and 2013-14 stood on different footing and even there this Court was persuaded to clarify that facts for one AY i.e. 2012-13 would not influence decision in subsequent AYs i.e. 2013-14. 7. Learned counsel for Revenue made two submissions. One was to say that since for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 matter had been remanded to ITA 662/2019 Page 2 of 4 TPO, ITAT should have, even for present AY i.e. 2014-15 remanded matter to TPO for fresh determination. 8. Court finds that in impugned order, ITAT has given detailed reasons for not remanding issue to TPO. In particular, ITAT noted that in AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 Dispute Resolution Panel ( DRP ) accepted Assessee s determination of ALP with regard to two intra group services received by Assessee viz., Ticketing HUB and VIPFS. As regards other intra group services, ALP was ascertained to be NIL by application of CUP. 9. ITAT has also discussed avenues provided by Assessee in respect of each and every service received by it. In Para 24, ITAT has observed as under: 24. In present days, such businesses are mostly done through emails and service provider, who is providing service through emails and electronic media. None of lower authorities have made any adverse comment in respect of services provided through emails. Moreover, such is practice since AY 2007-08 and in earlier AYs, same has been accepted. Above all, composite contract/ agreement is same and there is no change in business profile of assessee. assessee has made payments in accordance with written agreements which are supported by detailed evidence regarding receipt of services. Since payments have been made in pursuance to written agreements, in our considered opinion, same should be reasonable basis to confirm that payments are legitimate. 10. Court finds that ITAT has given detailed reasons for accepting ITA 662/2019 Page 3 of 4 case put forward by Assessee. view taken is plausible one and does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 11. other submission made is that ITAT in fact did not consider materials placed before TPO and decision taken thereon by TPO in relation to each of intra group services received by Assessee from its AEs. Court finds that ITAT has in fact applied its mind to evidence on record and given factual findings which this Court does not find to be perverse. 12. No substantial question of law arises. appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. TALWANT SINGH, J. JULY 23, 2019 tr ITA 662/2019 Page 4 of 4 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax1 v. Avery Dennison India Pvt. Ltd