THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the appeal based on the submissions made by both parties. The assessee contended that the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, and thus the appeal should not be entertained. The revenue sought liberty to revive the appeal if the case fell under the exceptions mentioned in the circulars. The Court granted this liberty to the revenue. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with the liberty as prayed for by the revenue. The substantial questions of law were kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding. No decision was made on the merits of the transfer pricing issues raised in the substantial questions of law.
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 09.02.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru, in IT(TP)A.No.1119/Bang/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. The ITAT's order had confirmed the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The core dispute pertains to transfer pricing adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) concerning corporate guarantees and notional interest on outstanding balances from associated enterprises (AEs). The High Court admitted the appeal to consider substantial questions of law.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to adopt 0.5% as the rate for corporate guarantee, relying on decisions in cases like Medrich Ltd., Manipal Global Education Services, and Xchanging Solutions, while allegedly ignoring the TPO's analysis of risk assessment, credit rating, debt-to-equity ratio of Associated Enterprises (AEs), and the viability of the AE obtaining a loan without a corporate guarantee? 2. Whether the Tribunal's order was perverse in directing the TPO to adopt 0.5% for corporate guarantee, disregarding the findings of the DRP and TPO that were supported by materials establishing the need for variation from the assessee's claim? 3. Whether the Tribunal's order was perverse in holding that no notional interest could be charged on the outstanding balance from AEs, ignoring that the TPO had made such adjustments based on facts and materials on record? 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 view of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which binds the revenue. Revenue's contention: The revenue requested 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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40450-DB ITA No. 400 of 2022
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.400 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, LTU, PRESENT ADDRESS: DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 01 …APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DILIP.M., ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. RAVIRAJ Y.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LTD.,
Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40450-DB ITA No. 400 of 2022
PLOT NO.25. 5TH FLOOR, JP SOFTWARD PARK, ELETRONIC CITY, PHASE I BENGALURU-560 100 PAN: AABCT1670M …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANNAMALAI S., ADVOCATE)
THIS 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.1119/BANG/2015 DATED 09/02/2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 (ANNEXURE-D) CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE DRP COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE 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:40450-DB ITA No. 400 of 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Heard the learned counsel Sri. Dilip.M., along with Sri. Raviraj.Y.V., learned counsel for the appellants/Revenue and Sri. Annamalai.S., learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.
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 09.02.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.No.1119/Bang/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11.
This Court, admitted the appeal on 09.01.2023 to consider the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in directing Transfer Pricing Officer to adopt 0.5% as Corporate guarantee by relying on the decision rendered by co-ordinate bench in case of Medrich Ltd, Manipal Global Education Services and Xchanging Solutions ignoring the facts of the case and TP Study put up by Transfer Pricing Officer analyzing the risk assessment, credit rating, debt to equity ratio of Associated Enterprises and
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40450-DB ITA No. 400 of 2022
viability of AE getting the loan without corporate guarantee"?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in directing Transfer Pricing Officer to adopt 0.5% as Corporate guarantee ignoring the findings of DRP and TPO which were well supported with materials establishing the need for variation from claim made by assessee"?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in holding no notional interest can be charged on the outstanding balance from AE's ignoring that TPO had rightly made said adjustments considering the facts and materials on record"?
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.
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:40450-DB ITA No. 400 of 2022
Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.
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
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhat Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 4 Nov 2026
- Siddharth Barai (Prop- Siddharth Design Studio) vs. The Superintendent CGST And Central Excise, Balangir RangeOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Shashibhusan Moharana vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, DhenkanalOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Paramount Tea Marketing PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 OrsGauhati · 4 Nov 2026
- Md. Junaid vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 4 Nov 2026