PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. M/S NVIDIA GRAPHICS PVT LTD,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/111/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01013071202410 December 2025Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice B M Shyam Prasad and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.M. Nadaf, disposed of both appeals. The Court noted that both the counsel for the appellants (Revenue) and the counsel for the respondent (Assessee) jointly stated that the appeals had become infructuous. This was due to the settlement of the dispute under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of on this basis, without delving into the merits of the ITAT's orders or the underlying tax dispute. No specific finding was made on the substantive issues that might have led to the original appeals before the ITAT.

What were the facts?

These appeals, ITA No. 112 of 2024 and ITA No. 111 of 2024, were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (the Revenue), against M/s NVIDIA Graphics Pvt Ltd (the Assessee). The appeals arise from orders dated 31/08/2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), C Bench, Bangalore. The ITAT orders were in relation to appeal proceedings bearing numbers IT(TP)A No. 801/BANG/2017 and ITA No. 736/BANG/2017, respectively, for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue sought to set aside the ITAT's appellate orders.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the orders of the ITAT for Assessment Year 2011-12, should be decided on merits. The Revenue contended that the ITAT orders were erroneous and sought their setting aside. The Assessee was represented by its counsel. However, both the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) and the learned counsel for the respondent (Assessee) stated that the appeals had become infructuous due to a settlement under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. No specific arguments on the merits of the ITAT's decision were recorded as the appeals were disposed of on procedural grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52381-DB ITA No. 112 of 2024 C/W ITA No. 111 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2024 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 111 OF 2024

IN ITA No. 112/2024

BETWEEN:

1.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 59(1)(1), BANGALORE.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

M/S NVIDIA GRAPHICS PVT LTD NO C01, JACARANDA,

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52381-DB ITA No. 112 of 2024 C/W ITA No. 111 of 2024

WING A, OUTER RING ROAD, MANYATHA EMBASSY BUSSINESS PARK, BENGALURU 560045.

…RESPONDENT (BY MS.NIRANJANA., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. HEMA MURALIKRISHNA., ADVOCATE )

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31/08/2021 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO. 801/BANG/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31/8/2021 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS

NO.

IT(TP)A NO. 801/BANG/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A), AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL.

IN ITA NO. 111/2024

BETWEEN:

1.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52381-DB ITA No. 112 of 2024 C/W ITA No. 111 of 2024

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 59(1)(1), BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E.I. SANMATHI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S NVIDIA GRAPHICS PVT LTD, NO C1, JACARANDA, WING A, OUTER RING ROAD, MANYATHA EMBASSY BUSSINESS PARK, BENGALURU 560045 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR. ...RESPONDENT (BY MS.NIRANJANA., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. HEMA MURALIKRISHNA., ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 31.08.2021 PASSED IN ITA NO. 736/BANG/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31/8/2021 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA NO. 736/BANG/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A), AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52381-DB ITA No. 112 of 2024 C/W ITA No. 111 of 2024

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

With both Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, the learned standing counsel for the appellants, and Ms.Niranjana, who appears on behalf of Ms.Hema Muralikrishna, the learned counsel for the respondent, stating that the appeals are rendered infructuous with the settlement under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme', the appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

SA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

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 →