THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EDGEVERSE SYSTEMS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/237/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01011231202127 February 2023Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, answering the substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee. The court acknowledged that the issue was covered by a previous decision of the same court.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision. The core issue was whether Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act overrides Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) provisions.

What were the issues?

Whether Section 206AA, with its non-obstante clause, overrides DTAA provisions, or if DTAA provisions prevail over the Act in this context.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 206AA,Section 90(2),Section 115A,Section 139A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench

- 1 -

ITA No. 237 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2021 BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE -1(1), 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DILIP M, STANDING COUNSEL FOR Shri. ARAVIND K V., SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL)

AND:

1.

M/S EDGEVERSE SYSTEMS LTD 44/97A KONAPPANA AGRAHARA HOSUR ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU-560 100 PAN:ADCE6300K TAN: BLRE06897C …RESPONDENT (BY Ms. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR Ms. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by NIRMALADEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

ITA No. 237 of 2021

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW; ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(IT)A NO. 13/BANG/2020 DATED 10/09/2020 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-2019 ANNEXURE- C CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This Appeal by the Revenue challenging the order dated 10.09.2020 passed in IT(IT)A No.13/Bang/2020 passed by the ITAT "C" Bench, Bangalore1, has been admitted to consider the following question of law:

1.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, orders passed by CIT(A) and Tribunal are perverse in nature as both the appellate authorities failed to observe that section 206AA starts with a non- obstante clause therefore it overrides all other provisions of the Act including section 90(2), 115A and 139A and as such provisions of DTAA will not over ride provisions of the I.T.Act?

1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench

- 3 -

ITA No. 237 of 2021

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal and CIT(A) are right in holding that provisions of DTAA will override provisions of the Act when the same is against to provisions of section 206AA of the Act? 2. Heard Shri. M. Dilip, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-Revenue and Ms. Manasa Ananthan, learned Advocate for the respondent-Assessee. 3. At the outset, Ms. Manasa Ananthan, learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Wipro Ltd.,2. 4. The said submission is not disputed by Shri. M. Dilip for the appellants, in his usual fairness. 5. In view of the above, following: ORDER

i) Appeal is dismissed.

2 ITA No.181/2019 and connected matters

- 4 -

ITA No. 237 of 2021

ii) The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

No costs.

SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE

BS- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75

More judgments on Section 206AA

All 196 judgments and leading authorities on Section 206AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →