THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S 3M INDIA LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/432/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01040732202225 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal with liberty granted to the revenue to revive it if the matter falls within the exceptions of the cited CBDT Circulars. The substantial questions of law were kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding. The Court did not decide the merits of the case concerning the ITAT's order setting aside the Commissioner's order under Section 263, nor did it rule on the allowability of the Corporate Management Fees or support services claims. The reasoning for this disposal was based on the submissions of both parties regarding the tax effect and the applicability of CBDT circulars, which restrict revenue appeals below a certain monetary threshold. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal with liberty to revive, leaving the substantive legal issues undecided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, is in appeal before the High Court of Karnataka against an order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2010-2011 and challenges the ITAT's decision in ITA No. 654/Bang/2017. The ITAT had set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is M/s. 3M India Limited. The dispute involves the deletion of additions made by the Commissioner, specifically relating to Corporate Management Fees and support services.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the order under Section 263 by relying on the Apex Court's decision in Malabar Industries, without appreciating that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to incorrect assumption or application of facts/law. 2. Whether the Tribunal's order setting aside the Section 263 order was perverse, considering that allowing the claim for Corporate Management Fees under Section 40(a)(ia) would negate prior Transfer Pricing adjustments. 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,80,00,000 claimed as Management Fees by wrongly holding the Section 263 order as erroneous, despite the conditions of Section 263 being satisfied. 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,56,46,834 claimed for support services by holding the Section 263 order as erroneous, without appreciating the Commissioner's findings. Assessee's contention: The appeal should not be entertained by the revenue due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 2 Crores, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which binds the revenue. Revenue's contention: Liberty to revive the appeal if the matter falls within the exceptions of 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,Section 263,Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39910-DB ITA No. 432 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH 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.432 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE. …APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SANMATHI E.I, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. 3M INDIA LIMITED, CONCORDE BLOCK, UB CITY, 24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU - 1, PAN: AAACB5724H. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39910-DB ITA No. 432 of 2022

THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 24/08/2021 PASSED IN ITA NO.654/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 24/08/2021 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH, BENGALURU, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE'S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO. 654/BANG/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 (ANNEXURE-A) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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:39910-DB ITA No. 432 of 2022

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

Heard the learned counsel Sri.E.I.Sanmathi for appellant/Revenue and Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

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 24.08.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.654/Bang/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11, raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. "Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing appeal of the assessee by setting aside the order under section 263 of the Act by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Malabar Industries (reported in 243 ITR page 83) without appreciating that this was a case of incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law which satisfied the requirement of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, in terms of said decision"?

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39910-DB ITA No. 432 of 2022

2.

"Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Tribunal can be said as perverse in law in setting aside the order passed under section 263 of the Act without appreciating that the allowing claim of assessee relating to Corporate Management Fees under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act this year would result in unjustifiably negating the Transfer Pricing adjustment made by transfer pricing officer in preceding"?

3.

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law in deleting addition of Rs.2,80,00,000 claimed as Management Fees by erroneously hold holding that order of passed under Section 263 is erroneous though conditions set out in said section are fully satisfied in instant case"?

4.

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs.2,56,46,834/- claimed as same is relating to support services by holding that order passed under section 263 is erroneous without appreciating the findings rendered by Commissioner in said order"?

3.

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

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39910-DB ITA No. 432 of 2022

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.

4.

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

5.

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.: 2 Sl No.: 9

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →