THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL, vs. M/S.SAMI SABINSA GROUP LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/151/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01056147202614 October 2026Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,K.S. HEMALEKHA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law raised in the present appeal was covered by its own previous decision in ITA.No.148/2026. This earlier decision arose from the same impugned order passed by the ITAT in IT(TP)A.No.639/Bang/2025 for Assessment Year 2014-15. Consequently, the Court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The specific reasoning for the decision in ITA.No.148/2026 is not detailed in this judgment, but it formed the basis for dismissing the current appeal.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (appellants, referred to as the Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal challenges an order dated December 31, 2025, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in IT(TP)A.Nos.638 & 639/Bang/2025. This specific appeal pertains to IT(TP)A.No.638/Bang/2025 concerning Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue sought to set aside the ITAT's order and confirm the orders of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal was filed with a delay of 38 days, which was condoned by the Court.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following question of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in directing to accept internal TNNM and delete the transfer pricing adjustment which is in violation of sections 92 to 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? The Revenue contended that the ITAT's direction to accept internal TNNM and delete the transfer pricing adjustment was in violation of the specified provisions of the Income Tax Act and Rules. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Respondent (M/s. Sami Sabinsa Group Ltd.) on this issue, other than implicitly supporting the ITAT's order which the Revenue is challenging.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 92,Section 92C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.151 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, 3RD FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), 3RD FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. SAMI SABINSA GROUP LTD., 19(1) & (2), PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, II PHASE, CHOKKASANDRA VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 058. …RESPONDENT

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE; ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A NO.638/BANG/2025 DATED 31.12.2025 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ANNEXURE-A

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: High Court of Karnataka HC-KAR AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE DRP CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE–3(2), BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1.

For the reasons stated in the application, I.A.No.1/2026, the same is allowed. The delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] impugning an order dated 31.12.2025 [the impugned order] passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [the ITAT] in IT(TP)A.Nos.638 & 639/Bang/2025 in respect of Assessment Years [AY]: 2013-14 and 2014-15. The present appeal arises from the impugned order insofar as it relates to IT(TP)A.No.638/Bang/2025 for AY 2013- 2014.

HC-KAR

3.

The Revenue has projected the following question of law for consideration of this Court :

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Tribunal is correct in directing to accept internal TNNM and delete the transfer pricing adjustment which is in violation of section 92 to 92C of Income Tax Act, 1961 and rule 10B of Income Tax Rules, 1962?"

4.

Concededly, the said issue is covered by the decision of this Court in ITA.No.148/20261, which arose from the impugned order passed by the learned ITAT in IT(TP)A.No.639/Bang/2025 for AY 2014-15. 5. In view of the said decision, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

1 NC:2026:KHC:49962-DB

More judgments on Section 92

All 434 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →