High Court of Delhi · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Delhi v. FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly eFunds International India Pvt. Ltd.)
ITA 306/2025 ·
FIS Global AY 2010–11: APA guidance accepted for uncovered year with unchanged FAR, subject to margin verification.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
Revenue challenged ITAT’s 18 June 2020 order for AY 2010–11 involving software-development and BPO transactions. The taxpayer relied on its 29 August 2016 APA covering FYs 2014–15 to 2018–19 and rollback FYs 2010–11 to 2013–14. Re-filing delay of 1,090 days was condoned.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
Revenue did not dispute unchanged functions, assets and risks or the stated consolidated OP/OC margin of 19.26%, above the APA margin of 16.60%. Following Ameriprise and Springer, the Court accepted the APA’s guidance value for the uncovered year. ITAT’s deletion remained subject to verification of the margin computation.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
The Court concurred with ITAT and the requirement to compare the relevant FAR profiles. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed because no substantial question of law arose.
4. OUTCOME
Assessee retained transfer-pricing relief, including the recorded computation-verification condition.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.
Persuasive use is distinct from contractual coverage
AY 2010–11 is not FY 2010–11. The judgment treats the APA as guidance for an uncovered assessment year, not an automatic extension of its contractual or statutory rollback period.
Source: PDF p. 10
Unchanged FAR and computation matter
The result depended on comparable functions, assets, risks and transactions and the stated margin comparison. The Tribunal expressly retained verification; the note should not certify that verification has already occurred.
Source: PDF p. 10
Do not manufacture a reconciled quantum
The source’s paragraphs 7–10 use inconsistent segment labels and adjustment figures. The operative margin-based reasoning is retained without converting those inconsistent figures into a supposedly verified deletion total.
Source: PDF p. 10
Source and verification
10-page official High Court of Delhi order/judgment PDF (20250917_DLHC010575202021.pdf, 102,695 bytes).
Original PDF: 10 pages · SHA-256: 6bcc4932bc61ff6a97bd34e9ed49522cd6e762d0b18c2df85683658eaeff0016
Complete source text and every original page visually reviewed; identity and SHA-256 checked. AI-assisted source analysis.
The source applies the persuasive value of an APA for an uncovered year with unchanged functions, assets and risks. Section 92CD(5) appears within a quoted other-case direction, not a new present-case order.
Subsequent judicial treatment has not been independently verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.