THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S FAIR ISSAC INDIA SOFTWARE PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the appeal with liberty granted to the Revenue to revive it as prayed for by its counsel. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding. No decision was made on the merits of the questions of law. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal with the specified liberty, acknowledging the submissions regarding the tax effect and the relevant circulars. The specific findings or reasoning of the Tribunal on the transfer pricing issues were not addressed by the High Court in this order.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, comprising the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2010-11 and challenges the ITAT's decision in IT(TP)A.No.471/Bang/2015. The High Court admitted the appeal on 05.03.2020 to consider substantial questions of law related to transfer pricing. During the hearing, the assessee, M/s. Fair Isaac India Software Pvt. Ltd., submitted that the tax effect was below Rs. 2 Crores, citing Circular No. 09/2024, and requested the appeal not be entertained. The Revenue sought liberty to revive the appeal if exceptions under relevant circulars applied.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in not acknowledging that there is no direct relationship between brand value and the margin earned by the company, and that while brand may generate revenue, it does not necessarily increase the profit margin. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in seeking exact comparables for the assessee under the Transfer Pricing Mechanism (TMM), when the law and international jurisprudence require seeking similar comparables. 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the exclusion of comparables, namely, Infosys Ltd., Kals Information Systems Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Acropetel Technologies Ltd., Eclerx Services Ltd., and Infosys BPO Ltd., by relying on its earlier decisions that had not reached finality, even when the Transfer Pricing Officer had rightly chosen comparables based on material on record. Assessee's Contention: The tax effect in the appeal is less than Rs. 2 Crores, and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained by the Revenue, citing Circular No. 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 under Circular No. 09/2024 and Circular No. 5/2024.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40404-DB ITA No. 687 of 2019
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.687 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A), 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(2), PRESENT ADDRESS, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095 …APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DILIP M., A/W SRI. RAVIRAJ Y.V., ADVOCATES)
Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40404-DB ITA No. 687 of 2019
AND:
M/S. FAIR ISSAC INDIA SOFTWARE PVT. LTD., GROUND FLOOR, TITANIUM, 135, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 017, PAN: AABCF7670G …RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED)
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 05/04/2019 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.471/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, 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:40404-DB ITA No. 687 of 2019
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 appellants/Revenue.
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 05.04.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.No.471/Bang/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11.
This Court, admitted the appeal on 05.03.2020 to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not acknowledging that there is no direct relationship between brand value and the margin earned by the company and brand may generate the Revenue of the Company but does not increase the profit margin?.
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40404-DB ITA No. 687 of 2019
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in seeking exact comparability, which searching for comparable companies of the assessee under TMM whereas the requirement of law and international jurisprudence require seeking similar comparables companies?.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirmed the exclusion of comparables, namely, Infosys Ltd., Kals Information Systems Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Acropetel Technologies Ltd., Eclerx Services Ltd., Infosys BPO Ltd., by relying upon its earlier decisions which has not reached finality and even when the Transfer Pricing Officer has rightly chosen comparable's after application of 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
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40404-DB ITA No. 687 of 2019
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 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 Sl No.: 15
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 →- Pramod Kumar Behera vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Santosh Kumar Pradhan (Late Biswabhar Pradhan) vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Mrs. Sharma Glass And Plywoods vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Sri Mohanraj vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Shobha Kumari vs. State Of Bihar And AnrPatna · 3 Nov 2026