PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 vs. M/S EMULEX COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/88/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01023949202010 September 2026Bench: S.G.PANDIT,CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable. The Court noted that the tax effect stated in the appeal memorandum was Rs.4,77,69,560/-, but accepted the assessee's submission that the net tax effect, after adjustments made under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was Rs.1,62,36,872/-. This amount was found to be less than Rs.2.00 Crores, which is the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 19.07.2024. The Court also acknowledged that the circular applies to pending appeals. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as not maintainable. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeals if the need arose. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law originally intended to be argued.

What were the facts?

These appeals were filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeals pertain to Assessment Year 2010-2011 and arise from IT(TP)A No.230/Bang/2015 and IT(TP)A No.152/Bang/2015. The tax effect stated in the Revenue's appeal memorandum was Rs.4,77,69,560/-. However, the assessee contended that this amount was after adjustments made pursuant to an order under Section 92CA of the Act. The assessee provided a calculation showing the net tax effect as Rs.1,62,36,872/-, which is less than Rs.2.00 Crores.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable before the High Court, considering the monetary limit for appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 19.07.2024? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the net tax effect in these appeals is Rs.1,62,36,872/-, which is below the Rs.2.00 Crores threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 for maintaining appeals before the High Court. The assessee further submitted that this circular applies to pending appeals. Revenue's contention: The Revenue did not present any specific arguments on the merits of the case. Their primary focus was on the maintainability of the appeals, as indicated by the proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 92CA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2021 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU.

2.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1) (4) BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (COMMON IN BOTH APPEALS)

(BY SRI. SANMATHI E. I., AND SRI DILIP, ADVS.)

AND:

M/S. EMULEX COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD., MILLENIUM TOWERS-C, 3RD FLOOR, “THE MILLENNIA”, 1 AND 2, MURPHY ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008, PAN NO: AACCA9990L …RESPONDENT (COMMON IN BOTH APPEALS)

(BY MISS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADV.)

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: High Court of Karnataka HC-KAR THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 08.11.2019 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO. 230/BANG/2015 AND IT(TP)A NO.152/BANG/2015 RESPECTIVELY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, PRAYING TO A) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

The above appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “1961 Act”) questioning the order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Bangalore (for short “Tribunal”) in IT (TP) A No.230/Bang/2015 by the assessee and in IT (TP) A No.152/Bang/2015 by the revenue for the assessment year 2010-11 raising the substantial questions of law stated in the memorandum of appeal.

HC-KAR

2.

In the appeal memorandum, tax effect is shown at Rs.4,77,69,560/-. However, Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee would submit that the tax effect amount shown in the appeal memorandum is after addition in pursuance of the order passed under Section 92CA of 1961 Act. Learned counsel for the assessee also files a memo of calculation to contend that the tax effect is Rs.1,62,36,872/-, less than Rs.2.00 Crores. Learned counsel for the respondent- assessee would submit that in terms of the Circular No.9/2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 19.07.2024, the monetary limit to maintain the appeal before the High Court is Rs.2.00 Crores. The said Circular would also apply to the pending appeals.

3.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, the tax effect shown in the appeal memorandum is after adjustment in terms of the order passed under Section 92CA of 1961 Act. In fact, the net HC-KAR tax effect as indicated by respondent-assessee would be less than Rs.2.00 Crores. Hence, both the appeals stand dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the appellants to revive the appeal, if need arises.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

More judgments on Section 92CA

All 3,978 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →