THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/378/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01033864201314 October 2026Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,K.S. HEMALEKHA3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of the appeal. The Court noted the submission by the assessee that the appeal had become infructuous because the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO), but the AO failed to pass an order within the stipulated period. The assessee had subsequently filed a writ petition seeking a refund, which was allowed by an order dated 07.11.2025, directing the Revenue to refund amounts for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. The Revenue did not prefer a writ appeal against this order and processed the refund, thereby accepting the writ court's direction. The Revenue's counsel did not dispute these facts but requested liberty to revisit the matter if the assessee's statements were found to be incorrect. The appeal was disposed of on these terms.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka against an order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for passing a detailed order. The assessee, M/s. Honeywell Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd., contended that the appeal had become infructuous because the AO failed to pass an order within the stipulated period after the remand. Consequently, the assessee filed a writ petition seeking a refund of amounts along with interest for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. This writ petition was allowed, directing the Revenue to refund the claimed amounts. The Revenue did not appeal this order and processed the refund.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous, considering the ITAT's remand order and the subsequent failure of the Assessing Officer to pass a detailed order within the stipulated period. 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to a refund of amounts along with applicable interest, as directed by the High Court in a subsequent writ petition, given the Revenue's acceptance of that order. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the appeal had become infructuous due to the AO's inaction post-remand. They further relied on the High Court's order in their writ petition, which directed the Revenue to refund the amounts for the specified assessment years, and noted that the Revenue had accepted this order by processing the refund. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention regarding the infructuousness of the appeal. However, they requested that liberty be reserved to revisit the matter if any of the statements made by the assessee were subsequently found to be incorrect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

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. 378 OF 2013

BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(4) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE …APPELLANTS (BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND: 1. M/S. HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PVT. LTD. NO.151/1, DORAISARIPALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 076 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI P. DINESHA & SRI TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATES)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka HC-KAR SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1344/BANG/2011 DATED 28/03/2013 AND CONFIRM THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL, TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the present appeal has become infructuous as the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer [AO] for passing a detailed order. However, the AO has not passed any order pursuant to the remand within the stipulated period. In the aforesaid view, the respondent had filed a writ petition, being W.P No.29023/2024 (T-IT) seeking refund of an amount along with the applicable interest in terms of the return filed by the assessee. The said petition was allowed by an order dated 07.11.2025 and the Revenue is directed to refund the amounts as HC-KAR claimed for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Revenue has not preferred any writ appeal against the same, on the other hand has processed the refund as directed accepting the order in the aforesaid writ petition.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue does not dispute the aforesaid contention. However, requests that liberty be reserved in the event it is subsequently found that any of the statements made by the assessee are incorrect.

3.

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

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 →