$~2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision : 12.12.2025

+ ITA 739/2025, CM APPL. 77781/2025

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7

.....Appellant

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr.

Anant Mann, JSC, Mr. P. Gupta, JSC.

versus

STERIA INDIA PVT. LTD.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Neeraj Jain and Mr. Aniket D.

Agrawal, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal lays a challenge to order dated 17.11.2020 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench „1-2‟, New Delhi (“ITAT”) deciding two ITA Nos. being 512 & 511/Del/2016 relating to Assessment

Year (“AY”) 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively.

2. We have been informed by Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant that this appeal is primarily relatable to ITA No. 512/Del/2016 concerning AY 2010-11 whereby the ITAT has

upheld the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel.

3. We may state that the appellant/Revenue has proposed the following

substantial questions of law for consideration:-

“2.1 Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in not appreciating that the Arm's Length Price of an

international transaction, as defined in Section 92F(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961, is the price applied or proposed to be applied in an uncontrolled transaction, and consequently must remain uninfluenced by extraneous factors and post transaction events like foreign exchange fluctuation which are likely to materially affect the actual receipt or payment but do not impact the price intended to be charged or paid.?

2.2 Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in not appreciating the fact that the TPO followed the provisions of' Rule 10B(3) by similarly treating foreign exchange fluctuation as non-operating cost/revenue of the tested party as well as of the comparables to eliminate the differences, thereby leading to a consistent and reliable basis for comparison?

2.3 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. ITAT was right in, law in considering Infosys RPO fit. Ltd. as functionally non comparable without considering the findings of the TPO w.r.t the fact that the assessee company is also enjoying brand name as in the case of the comparable i.e. BPO Infosys Pvt. Ltd.?

2.4 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld ITAT was right in law in considering TCS E-Serve International Ltd as functionally non comparable without considering the findings of the TPO w.r.t the fact that the assessee company is also enjoying brand name as in the case of the comparable.?

2.5 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. ITAT was right in law in considering TCS E Serve. as functionally non comparable without considering the findings of the TPO with respect to the fact that the assessee company is also enjoying brand name as in the case of the comparable i.e. TCS E-Serve?

2.6 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. ITAT was right in law in considering Accentia Technologies Ltd. as functionally non comparable on the ground of amalgamation. Whether amalgamation of companies should be treated as an extraordinary event for the purpose of comparable when functions of the company remain unchanged?

2.7 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld., ITAT was right in law in considering Infinite Data System as functionally non comparable without considering the findings of the TPO w.r.t the fact that the comparable company has passed all the appropriate filters applied by the TPO?

2.8 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. ITAT was right in law in considering Persistent Systems as functionally non comparable on the ground that it is engaged in software product business and this segment of business is not the part of the software development services?

Whether the exclusion of the comparable entities can be sustained as done by the Ld. ITAT without determining the specific characteristics of the transactions: FAR (functi