M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LTD., vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/520/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01043783201318 December 2013Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals were without merit and dismissed them. The Tribunal's order, which declared the assessee as an 'assessee in default' under Section 201(1) for not deducting tax at source, was upheld. The reasoning was that the Tribunal had followed the binding judgment of the High Court in C.I.T. V/s. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (reported in 245 CTR 481 KAR). The High Court found no justification to entertain the present appeals as the appellant was bound by the aforementioned precedent. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by M/s. IBM India Private Ltd. (the assessee) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore. The ITAT had held that the assessee was an 'assessee in default' under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for failing to deduct tax at source. The Tribunal's decision was based on a previous judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of C.I.T. V/s. Samsung Electronics Ltd. The High Court, in its current order, found no justification to entertain the appeals as the assessee was bound by the precedent set in the Samsung Electronics Ltd. case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee, M/s. IBM India Private Ltd., is an 'assessee in default' under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for failure to deduct tax at source. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the filing of the appeals implies a challenge to the ITAT's finding. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the ITAT's order, which is being appealed, found the assessee to be in default.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER 2013

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

I.TA. NOS.520-531/2013

BETWEEN :

M/s. IBM India Private Ltd., Subramanya Archade, No.12, Bannerghatta Main Road, Bangalore – 560 029. Represented by its Director, Smt.Anita Sanghi, D/o.Sri.Mahabir Losalka, Aged about 46 years. ...APPELLANT

(By Smt.Vani H., Adv.)

AND :

Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) Ward-1(2), R.P.Bhavan, No.14/3, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore – 560 001. …RESPONDENT

. . . .

These I.T.As. are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) allow the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in I.T.A. No.1132 to 1143/Bang/2012 dated 14.06.2013.

- 2 -

These I.T.As. coming on for admission, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

These appeals are preferred against a common order passed by the Tribunal holding that the assessee is an `assessee in default’ under Section 201(1) of the Act for not deducting tax at source. To come to the said conclusion, the Tribunal has followed the judgment of this Court in case of C.I.T. V/s. Samsung Electronics Ltd., reported in 245 CTR 481 KAR.

2.

In that view of the matter, we do not find any justification to entertain this appeal as the said judgment binds the appellant herein also as held by the Appellate Court. There is no merit in these appeals. Hence, appeals are dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

SPS

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →