M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICER, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

ITTPA 1168/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 January 2025AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, IBM India Private Limited, filed appeals before the CIT(Appeals) for Assessment Years (AYs) 2010-11 and 2012-13. These appeals were filed on a protective basis while similar appeals for the same AYs were pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had already decided the appeals for AY 2010-11 on July 18, 2022, and for AY 2012-13 on February 14, 2022. The assessee contended that the CIT(Appeals)'s observation that the appeals were withdrawn was factually incorrect. The assessee requested that the matters be restored to the CIT(Appeals) for proper verification and adjudication. The revenue's counsel agreed with this prayer. The CIT(Appeals) had passed orders dated April 16, 2024, which are under challenge.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) could have decided the matters in light of the ITAT's findings for AY 2010-11 (ITA Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016, order dated 18.7.2022) and AY 2012-13 (ITA No.625/Bang/2017, order dated 14.02.2022). However, the CIT(Appeals) did not take cognizance of these ITAT orders. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had entered into an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) and revised its Return of Income. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for deciding afresh, after taking into cognizance the ITAT's orders and all other proceedings that occurred in these years. The general ground of appeal (Ground No.1) was dismissed as not pressed. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(Appeals)'s observation that the assessee had withdrawn its appeals is factually correct (mixed question of law and fact). Assessee's contentions: - The appeals were filed before the CIT(Appeals) on a protective basis while appeals for the same AYs were pending before the ITAT. - The ITAT had already decided the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2012-13. - The CIT(Appeals)'s conclusion that the assessee had withdrawn the impugned appeals is factually incorrect. - The CIT(Appeals) erred in disposing of the appeal by concluding it as infructuous instead of following the ITAT's conclusions. - The assessee prayed for the matters to be restored to the CIT(Appeals) for proper verification and adjudication. Revenue's contentions: - The ld. DR accepted the assessee's prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 92CD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 16.01.2025Pronounced: 24.01.2025

Per Bench Present appeals of the assessee are arising out of the order of the of the CIT(Appeals), Bengaluru-12, dated 16.4.2024 having DIN ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1064144020(1) & ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1064144278(1) and relates to the AYs 2010-11 & 2012-13 respectively.

2.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that these appeals are filed on protective basis before the ld. CIT(A) when

IT(TP)A Nos.1168 & 1169/Bang/2024 the appeals for the same AYs were pending before the ITAT. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITAT has decided the appe

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,666 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →