THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S FIRST ADVANTAGE GLOBAL OPERATING CENTER PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/110/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC01005780202027 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal based on the submissions made by both parties. The learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the tax effect was below Rs. 2 Crores, invoking CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The Revenue sought liberty to revive the appeal if it fell under the exceptions to the circulars. The Court granted this liberty to the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without adjudicating on the substantial questions of law. The Court explicitly kept the questions of law open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding. Therefore, no findings were made on the merits of the four substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue, nor were any operative directions issued regarding the ITAT's order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income-tax and Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax) filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal challenges an order dated 07.08.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru, for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The ITAT's order had confirmed the order of the Appellate Commissioner, which in turn had confirmed the order of the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax. The assessee is M/s First Advantage Global Operating Center Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was admitted by the High Court on 09.10.2020, raising substantial questions of law.

What were the issues?

The High Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by requiring exact comparability for comparable companies under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), when international jurisprudence mandates seeking similar comparables? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by imposing comparability standards that could undermine the purpose of determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) under the Act? 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by failing to acknowledge that there is no direct correlation between brand value and profit margin, and that a branch may generate revenue but not necessarily increase profit margins? 4. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by directing the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to treat Forex gain as operating revenue, relying on its previous decisions in the cases of SAP Labs India Pvt Ltd and Triology India Pvt. Ltd, despite the TPO excluding it as not incidental to the assessee's business? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs. 2 Crores, and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained by the Revenue in light of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which binds the Revenue. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue sought liberty to revive the appeal if the matter falls within the exceptions provided in Circular No. 09/2024 and Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40408-DB ITA No. 110 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.110 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 11(3), PRESENT ADDRESS JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. …APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. DILIP.M., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. RAVIRAJ Y.V., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40408-DB ITA No. 110 of 2020

AND:

M/S FIRST ADVANTAGE GLOBAL OPERATING CENTER PVT. LTD., LEVEL-1, EXPLORER BUILDING, INGTERNATIONAL PARK, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BENGALURU-560 066, PAN: AAACZ1029M …RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. M.R.VANAJA, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 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 IT(TP)A NO.190/BANG/2014 DATED 07/08/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 (ANNEXURE-D) CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-1, BENGALURU AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40408-DB ITA No. 110 of 2020

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Dilip.M., for appellants/Revenue and the learned counsel Smt.M.R.Vanaja, for the respondent.

2.

The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 07.08.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.No.190/Bang/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10.

3.

This Court, admitted the appeal on 09.10.2020 to consider the following substantial questions of law:

1.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in seeking exact comparability, while searching for comparable companies of the assessee under TNMM whereas the requirement of law and international jurisprudence require seeking similar comparables companies?

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in demanding comparability standards that may itself defeat the

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40408-DB ITA No. 110 of 2020

purpose of law relating to determination of ALP under the Act?

3.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in not acknowledging that there is no direct relationship between brand value and the margin earned by the company, Branch may generate the revenue of the company but does not increase the profit margin?

4.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the TPO to treat Forex gain as operating revenue based on its earlier decision in the case of SAP Labs India Pvt Ltd and Triology India Pvt. Ltd even though the same is rightly excluded by TPO considering that the same is not incidental to business of assessee?"

4.

Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40408-DB ITA No. 110 of 2020

Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.

6.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the question of law is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

SMJ List No.: 4 Sl No.: 20

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →