CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/27815/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01058330202412 March 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka took note of the memo for withdrawal filed by the petitioner. The memo stated that the dispute involved in the writ petitions had been settled by invoking the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under the DTAA between India and the USA. An order dated 27.01.2026 was passed in terms of Rule 44G of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, pursuant to this settlement. In light of this development, the Court found that the writ petitions had become infructuous. Therefore, the Court disposed of the petitions as withdrawn, not requiring further adjudication on the merits of the original challenge.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., filed two writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka. WP No. 27816 of 2024 challenged an order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing, for Assessment Year 2017-18. WP No. 27815 of 2024 challenged a similar order dated 19.09.2024 for Assessment Year 2018-19. The orders under challenge were passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, recomputing outstanding dues from the petitioner's Associated Enterprises. During the pendency of these petitions, the petitioner invoked the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the United States of America.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the writ petitions filed by the petitioner had become infructuous. The petitioner argued that they had settled the dispute by invoking the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under the DTAA between India and the USA. This settlement resulted in an order dated 27.01.2026 passed in terms of Rule 44G of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Consequently, the petitioner contended that the present writ petitions had become infructuous and sought leave to withdraw them. The revenue did not present any arguments against the withdrawal, as the petitioner's memo for withdrawal was accepted by the Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP No. 27816 of 2024
WP No. 27815 of 2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14907 WP No. 27816 of 2024 C/W WP No. 27815 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 27816 OF 2024 (T-IT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 27815 OF 2024 (T-IT) IN WP No. 27816/2024 BETWEEN: 1. CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., S1, WIPRO ELECTRONIC CITY, SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560 100. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR PAN NO. AAACC4971D …PETITIONER (BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRANSFER PRICING, DC/ACIT TP 1 (1)(2), BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14907 WP No. 27816 of 2024 C/W WP No. 27815 of 2024 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2024 (ANNEXURE-G) BEARING DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1068846231(1) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 AND ETC. IN WP NO. 27815/2024 BETWEEN: 1. CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., S1, WIPRO ELECTRONIC CITY, SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560 100. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR PAN NO. AAACC4971D. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRANSFER PRICING, DC/ACIT TP 1(1)(2) BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14907 WP No. 27816 of 2024 C/W WP No. 27815 of 2024 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1) BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2024 (ANNEXURE-'F') BEARING DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1068847866(1) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 AND ETC.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo for withdrawal, which reads as under: "MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL

The Advocate for the Petitioner most humbly submits as under:

The above petition is filed questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 154 of

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14907 WP No. 27816 of 2024 C/W WP No. 27815 of 2024 the Income-tax Act, 1961, recomputing the outstanding dues receivable from the Petitioner's Associated Enterprises ("AEs") for the assessment year 2017-18. During the pendency of the above petition, the Petitioner has settled the dispute involved in the present petition by invoking the provisions of Mutual Agreement Procedure ("MAP") under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United States of America. Pursuant to the above, an order dated 27.01.2026 was passed in terms of Rule 44G of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. In view of the above, the present petition has become infructuous and thus the Petitioner craves leave of the Hon'ble Court to withdraw the above petition.

Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Court be pleased to dispose of the above petition as "withdrawn" in the interests of justice and equity."

2.

Taking note of the contents of the memo, the petition is disposed of as not calling for adjudication. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE SHS

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →