{"id":9306,"date":"2008-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008"},"modified":"2019-01-02T13:45:44","modified_gmt":"2019-01-02T08:15:44","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi … vs Eds Electronics Data Systems … on 29 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi … vs Eds Electronics Data Systems … on 29 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed<\/div>\n
           THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                                 Judgment delivered on: 29.09.2008\n\n+            ITA 734\/2008\n\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nDELHI - IV, NEW DELHI                                    ... Appellant\n\n                                 - versus -\n\nEDS ELECTRONICS DATA SYSTEMS\n(INDIA) PVT. LTD                                         ... Respondent<\/pre>\n
Advocates who appeared in this case:\n<\/p>\n
For the Appellant     : Ms Prem Lata Bansal\nFor the Respondent    : Mr Aseem Mowar with Ms Mallika Poswal and\n                        Ms Sheena Piplani\n\nCORAM:-\nHON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED\nHON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER\n\n<\/pre>\n
     1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
\n           see the judgment ?                                  Yes<\/p>\n
     2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                   Yes<\/p>\n
     3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes<\/p>\n
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)<\/p>\n
1.           This appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act,<\/p>\n
1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) is directed against the<\/p>\n
Tribunal’s order dated 10.03.2004 pertaining to the assessment year<\/p>\n
2000-2001.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.           The learned counsel for the appellant\/ revenue pressed two<\/p>\n
issues before this Court. One was with regard to the payment made to<\/p>\n
ITA No. 734\/2008                                                    Page No.1 of 8<\/span>
\n expatriates in the sum of Rs 4,03,31,726\/-. According to the revenue<\/p>\n
the said payment could not be treated as an accrued liability in the year<\/p>\n
in question because the Reserve Bank of India’s permission for such<\/p>\n
remittances had been received in the subsequent year. The case of the<\/p>\n
revenue is that since the approval for remittances had been received in<\/p>\n
the subsequent year, there could not have been an accrued liability in<\/p>\n
the current year.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.           The other issue sought to be raised by the revenue pertains to<\/p>\n
the provision made for bad\/ doubtful debts for the purposes of<\/p>\n
computing book profits under Section 115 JA of the said Act. The<\/p>\n
Assessing Officer made an addition on account of the provision which<\/p>\n
had been claimed by the assessee.       The same had been deleted by the<\/p>\n
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. We find that this issue is no longer<\/p>\n
debatable inasmuch as it stands settled by several decisions of this<\/p>\n
Court as well as the Supreme Court. The said decisions are:-<\/p>\n
             1. CIT v. Eicher Ltd<\/a>: 287 ITR 170;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             2. CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd<\/a>: 292
\n                   ITR 299;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             3. Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, New Delhi v. M\/s
\n                   HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd<\/a>: Civil Appeal
\n                   No. 5800\/2008 by a judgment and order dated
\n                   23.09.2008<\/p>\n
ITA No. 734\/2008                                                Page No.2 of 8<\/span>
\n The decision taken by the Tribunal in deleting the addition made by the<\/p>\n
Assessing Officer is in line with these decisions. Consequently, the<\/p>\n
question proposed on this issue by the revenue does not call for any<\/p>\n
further consideration by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.           Coming to the first issue sought to be raised by the revenue,<\/p>\n
we find that the same is also covered by the decision of this Court in<\/p>\n
the case of Bhai Sunder Dass & Sons Co. P. Ltd v. CIT<\/a>: 259 ITR 33.<\/p>\n
The factual background in respect of this issue is that the assessee<\/p>\n
entered into an agreement with EDS Global Services Inc., USA on<\/p>\n
21.09.1999. Under the said agreement EDS Global Services Inc., USA<\/p>\n
provided the assessee with manpower for executing software projects.<\/p>\n
In consideration for services rendered, the assessee reimbursed the<\/p>\n
employment cost of the personnel, who were deputed for the purpose,<\/p>\n
to EDS Global Services Inc., USA, at the agreed rates. The assessee,<\/p>\n
therefore, made a provision of Rs 4,03,31,726\/- in the year in question<\/p>\n
under the head “expatriate cost” for remuneration to be reimbursed to<\/p>\n
EDS Global Services Inc., USA. The provision had been made on the<\/p>\n
basis of invoices raised by EDS Global Services Inc., USA on the<\/p>\n
assessee.          During the course of the assessment proceedings, the<\/p>\n
Assessing Officer had noticed that the assessee had filed an application<\/p>\n
with the Reserve Bank of India for approval of the agreement and<\/p>\n
remittances to EDS Global Services Inc., USA. The requisite approval<\/p>\n
ITA No. 734\/2008                                                Page No.3 of 8<\/span>
\n had been received after the expiry of the previous year relevant to the<\/p>\n
assessment year under consideration. The Assessing Officer disallowed<\/p>\n
the claim of the assessee on the premise that since the approval of the<\/p>\n
agreement had not been received during the year in question, no<\/p>\n
liability under a valid contract arose. Reliance had been placed on the<\/p>\n
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nonsuch Tea Estate Ltd<\/p>\n
v. CIT<\/a>: 98 ITR 189.           The learned counsel for the revenue also<\/p>\n
advanced the very same argument and placed reliance on the said<\/p>\n
decision of the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.           We may note that the Commissioner of Income Tax<\/p>\n
(Appeals) had deleted the addition made by the Assessing officer after<\/p>\n
holding that the assessee was following the mercantile system of<\/p>\n
accounting and the liability had accrued although the same was to be<\/p>\n
discharged on a later date.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.           In the revenue’s appeal before the Tribunal, the stand taken<\/p>\n
by the Assessing Officer was reiterated. However, after hearing the<\/p>\n
parties and after going through the material available on record, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the agreement between the<\/p>\n
assessee and EDS Global Services Inc., USA was not in doubt and that<\/p>\n
the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting. The<\/p>\n
Tribunal also noted that the liability for making the payment had arisen<\/p>\n
ITA No. 734\/2008                                               Page No.4 of 8<\/span>
\n because of the terms of the contract entered into between the parties. It<\/p>\n
is in this context that the Tribunal concluded that the approval of the<\/p>\n
Reserve Bank of India for remittance of the payment would not come<\/p>\n
in the way of accrual of liability under the mercantile system of<\/p>\n
accounting. The Tribunal examined the Supreme Court decision in the<\/p>\n
case of Nonsuch Tea Estate Ltd (supra) and noted that the said case<\/p>\n
was distinguishable because in that case the approval of the Central<\/p>\n
Government was a pre-condition before which commission could not<\/p>\n
be paid to managing agents.        Since the approval of the Central<\/p>\n
Government had not been received during the relevant year, the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion that the liability had not<\/p>\n
accrued in that year. The Tribunal noted, and in our view correctly,<\/p>\n
that the assessee’s liability to pay the remuneration of the managing<\/p>\n
agents arose only when the government conveyed its approval and not<\/p>\n
prior to that date.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.           In the present case, the approval of the Reserve Bank of<\/p>\n
India was not a pre-condition for entering into an agreement between<\/p>\n
the assessee and EDS Global Services Inc., USA. The permission of<\/p>\n
the Reserve Bank of India was required only for the purpose of<\/p>\n
remitting the funds abroad as per the agreement. The Tribunal noted as<\/p>\n
a finding of fact that the liability accrued for the services rendered by<\/p>\n
the employees of EDS Global Services Inc., USA and that it was not<\/p>\n
ITA No. 734\/2008                                              Page No.5 of 8<\/span>
\n the case of the revenue that the approval of the Reserve Bank of India<\/p>\n
was required before hiring of the services of EDS Global Services Inc.,<\/p>\n
USA.       The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the liability which<\/p>\n
accrued under the mercantile system of accounting would be deductible<\/p>\n
in the year of accrual itself. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the<\/p>\n
order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting<\/p>\n
the addition made by the Assessing Officer.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.           We are of the view that the decision taken by the Tribunal is<\/p>\n
absolutely correct in law.      In Nonsuch Tea Estate Ltd (supra) the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court had noted that there was an absolute bar on the<\/p>\n
commission being paid to the managing agents unless and until the<\/p>\n
Central Government had approved such appointments in terms of<\/p>\n
Section 326 of the Companies Act, 1956. In the present case, there is<\/p>\n
no such express bar. In fact, the entire argument before the authorities<\/p>\n
below has proceeded on the basis that the approval for remittances was<\/p>\n
granted by the Reserve Bank of India in the year subsequent to the year<\/p>\n
in question. As noted in the Tribunals’ order it is not the case of the<\/p>\n
revenue that the approval of the Reserve Bank of India was required<\/p>\n
before hiring of the services of EDS Global Services Inc., USA,<\/p>\n
meaning thereby that entering into the agreement between the assessee<\/p>\n
and EDS Global Services Inc., USA was itself not in question. In<\/p>\n
Nonsuch Tea Estate Ltd (supra), the Supreme Court noted its<\/p>\n
ITA No. 734\/2008                                                Page No.6 of 8<\/span>
\n observations in an earlier case, namely, CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu :<\/p>\n
53 ITR 114 wherein it had observed that the mercantile system of<\/p>\n
accountancy brings into credit what is due immediately it becomes<\/p>\n
legally due and before it is actually received; and it brings into debit<\/p>\n
expenditure of the amount for which a “legal” liability has been<\/p>\n
incurred before it is actually disbursed. It is in the context of the<\/p>\n
expression “legal liability” that the Supreme Court in the case of<\/p>\n
Nonsuch Tea Estate Ltd (supra) came to the conclusion that unless<\/p>\n
and until the approval of the Central Government was taken for the<\/p>\n
appointment of managing agents, the bar of Section 326 would operate<\/p>\n
and, therefore, any liability could not be considered to be a “legal”<\/p>\n
liability unless and until the approval of the Central Government was<\/p>\n
taken.     In the present case, as we have already noted above, there was<\/p>\n
no legal bar to the assessee entering into the agreement with EDS<\/p>\n
Global Services Inc., USA. The only question was of seeking approval<\/p>\n
for remittances of the amounts outside India for which approval of the<\/p>\n
Reserve Bank of India was required. The fact that the liability had<\/p>\n
accrued as per the contract cannot be disputed. Once that is the case,<\/p>\n
then, where the assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting, it<\/p>\n
cannot be said that the liability had not accrued in terms of the contract.<\/p>\n
9.           We note that in Bhai Sunder Dass (supra) this Court had<\/p>\n
also considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Nonsuch Tea<\/p>\n
ITA No. 734\/2008                                                Page No.7 of 8<\/span>
\n Estate Ltd (supra). There also this Court noted that in Nonsuch Tea<\/p>\n
Estate Ltd (supra) there was an absolute restriction against the<\/p>\n
appointment and re-appointment of managing agents without the<\/p>\n
approval of the Government and, therefore, till such approval had been<\/p>\n
obtained and granted there was no question of liability to pay the<\/p>\n
remuneration accruing, which was not the case in Bhai Suder Dass<\/p>\n
(supra).      In Bhai Suder Dass (supra) also there was absolutely no<\/p>\n
restriction on the assessee entering into an agreement with any person<\/p>\n
resident outside India for rendering of services and the restriction was<\/p>\n
only limited to the remittances of money abroad without the permission<\/p>\n
of the Reserve Bank of India. We find that the case of Bhai Suder<\/p>\n
Dass (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The<\/p>\n
Tribunal has correctly applied the law on the basis of the facts<\/p>\n
determined by it.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.          Therefore, on both the issues proposed by the revenue, we<\/p>\n
find that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.<\/p>\n
The appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J<\/p>\n
                                      RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
\nSeptember 29, 2008
\nSR<\/p>\n
ITA No. 734\/2008                                              Page No.8 of 8<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi … vs Eds Electronics Data Systems … on 29 September, 2008 Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 29.09.2008 + ITA 734\/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – IV, NEW DELHI … Appellant – versus – EDS ELECTRONICS […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9306","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income Tax Delhi ... vs Eds Electronics Data Systems ... on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi ... vs Eds Electronics Data Systems ... on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-02T08:15:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi … vs Eds Electronics Data Systems … on 29 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-02T08:15:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1773,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi ... vs Eds Electronics Data Systems ... on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-02T08:15:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi … vs Eds Electronics Data Systems … on 29 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi ... vs Eds Electronics Data Systems ... on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi ... vs Eds Electronics Data Systems ... on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-02T08:15:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi … vs Eds Electronics Data Systems … on 29 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-02T08:15:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008"},"wordCount":1773,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi ... vs Eds Electronics Data Systems ... on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-02T08:15:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-delhi-vs-eds-electronics-data-systems-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi … vs Eds Electronics Data Systems … on 29 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9306","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9306"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9306\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9306"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9306"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9306"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}