THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MPHASIS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/202/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01015477202105 December 2022Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, in its order dated 5th December 2022, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court's decision was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel that the issue involved in the present appeal was identical to that in ITA No.181/2019, which had been disposed of on 29.11.2022. Consequently, the questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal, thereby upholding the ITAT's order which had confirmed the lower appellate authority's decision in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellants) filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru. The ITAT's order, dated 27/11/2019 in ITA No. 1692/BANG/2018, pertained to Assessment Year 2011-2012. The ITAT had confirmed the order of the Appellate Commissioner, which in turn had confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision to confirm the lower authorities' orders, which were in favour of the assessee, M/s. Mphasis Ltd. The dispute concerns the tax treatment for the specified assessment year.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the appeal filed by the Revenue against the ITAT's order for Assessment Year 2011-2012, given that the issue is similar to a previously decided case (ITA No.181/2019). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by Shri K.V. Aravind, submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is similar to the one in ITA No.181/2019, which was disposed of on 29.11.2022. This implies the Revenue sought to rely on the outcome of the prior case. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, M/s. Mphasis Ltd., other than the implicit acceptance of the ITAT's order which was in their favour. The assessee was represented by Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

ITA No. 202 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 202 OF 2021 BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE -1(1), 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.ARAVIND K V, STANDING COUNSEL)

AND:

M/S.MPHASIS LTD BAGMANE WORLD TECHNOLOGY CENTRE MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD DODDANAKHUNDI VILLAGE BENGALURU – 560 048 PAN-AAACB6820C

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT.TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 1692/BANG/2018 DATED

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

ITA No. 202 of 2021

27/11/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 ANNEXURE-D CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Shri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is similar to the one in ITA No.181/2019 disposed of on 29.11.2022.

2.

In view of the said submission, appeal is dismissed.

The questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE AKC

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →