THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/39/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01003638202405 February 2025Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,G BASAVARAJA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. The reasoning provided was that the tax effect in this appeal was less than the threshold prescribed in the Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on this preliminary ground. The Court did not delve into the substantive issues decided by the ITAT or the orders of the lower authorities. No specific findings were made on the merits of the tax dispute. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellants) have 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 June 13, 2023, passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru, in IT(TP)A No. 919/BANG/2022. This order pertains to the Assessment Year 2018-2019. The Appellants seek to set aside the ITAT's order and confirm the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which in turn had confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The Respondent is M/s. Concur Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. The Respondent was served but remained unrepresented.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is maintainable given the tax effect in light of the CBDT Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Respondent-Assessee. The appeal was filed by the Revenue. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, argued the case. The core of their argument, as reflected in the outcome, likely revolved around the merits of the ITAT's decision. However, the High Court's decision was based on a preliminary procedural ground related to the tax effect threshold stipulated by CBDT circulars, rather than the substantive tax issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5201-DB ITA No. 39 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 (1) (1), 2ND FLOOR, BTMC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NO. 65/2, BAGMANE LAUREL, BAGMANE TECH PARK, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 093. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13.06.2023 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO. 919/BANG/2022, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-2019 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A NO. 919/BANG/2022 DATED 13.06.2023 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-2019 ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRM THE

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5201-DB ITA No. 39 of 2024

ORDER OF THE DRP CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE 2(1)(1), BENGALURU.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

The tax effect in this Appeal is less than what is prescribed in Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, this appeal is not maintainable and it is accordingly disposed off.

2.

Registry to send a copy of this order to the Respondent-Assessee by speed post.

Costs made easy.

Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

AV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

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 →