Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-7, Delhi v. Steria India Pvt. Ltd.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Revenue challenged ITAT’s common order dated 17 November 2020 in ITA 512 and 511/Del/2016 for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12; counsel identified this appeal principally with ITA 512 and AY 2010-11. Proposed questions disputed foreign exchange treatment and comparable exclusions. Revenue accepted that all proposed questions except 2.2 were covered against it by the authorities in the filed chart.

Source: Paragraphs 1–4; PDF pp.1–3

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The reproduced chart linked exclusions to brand value, functional differences, amalgamation, related-party transactions and absent segmental data, depending on the company. For question 2.2 the Court applied Ameriprise, ITA 206/2016, decided 23 March 2016, concerning operating treatment of exchange gains/losses from trading items. It held that question likewise did not arise. Additionally, a 1,265-day delay in re-filing independently disinclined the Court to interfere.

Source: Chart and paragraphs 5–8; PDF pp.4–8

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The appeal and pending application were dismissed. The Court relied on the covered issues and additionally the re-filing delay.

Source: Paragraphs 7–9; PDF p.8

4. OUTCOME

The challenged Tribunal relief survived for this appeal. The order does not set a universal list of excluded companies for every taxpayer or assessment year.

Source: Paragraphs 2,4–9; PDF pp.1,3–8

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Distinguish the conceded issues from the reasoned forex point

Revenue accepted precedent coverage except question 2.2. That remaining issue was separately disposed of through Ameriprise, whose quoted reasoning links exchange effects to trading items and cost-plus pricing. It does not support classifying all exchange movements as operating regardless of their underlying transaction.

Source: PDF p.3 · PDF p.7 · PDF p.8

A comparables chart requires company-specific reading

The chart gives different reasons for different companies: brand value for certain large providers, amalgamation and other features for Accentia and Infinite, and functional/segmental concerns elsewhere. It also includes Infosys Technologies and Wipro, with numbering differing from the proposed questions. Use the named company, segment and cited underlying decision, rather than treating the chart as one generic six-company exclusion rule.

Source: PDF p.4 · PDF p.5 · PDF p.6 · PDF p.7

Keep quoted facts and procedural grounds with their own case

The 22 January 2016 APA and Ameriprise USA agreement occur inside the quoted precedent, not as Steria findings. The Court’s separate re-filing ground is 1,265 days; it gives no detailed account of a sufficient-cause explanation. Both the precedent disposition and that additional ground should accompany reliance on the result.

Source: PDF p.7 · PDF p.8