IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision was based on the lack of substantial question of law arising for consideration and the coverage of the issue by a previous court decision.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 47917/2023

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

CM No.47918/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 170 days in re-filing the appeal]

2. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.

2.1. According to the appellant/asseessee, there is a delay of 170 days in re-filing the appeal.

3. Mr Udit Naresh, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he does not oppose the prayer made in the application.

4. Accordingly, the prayer made in the application is allowed.

5. The application is disposed of.

ITA 533/2023

6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

7. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"].

8. The Tribunal has ruled in favour of respondent/assessee and in this regard relied upon the decision rendered in the assessee's case for AYs 2007-08 to 2012-13.

9. It is not disputed by Mr Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of appellant/revenue that the issue raised in the instant appeal is covered by the decision of this court dated 31.08.2023 in The Commissioner of Income Tax-International Taxation-1 vs Amadeus IT Group SA, 2023:DHC:6502-DB.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is closed, as no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.