PR COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICE PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/127/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01014892202426 November 2025Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue did not survive for consideration, as they were answered by previous judgments of coordinate benches.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning assessment year 2011-12. The High Court noted that a coordinate bench had already decided the same issue for relevant assessment years.

What were the issues?

Whether technical services provided by the assessee were in the nature of reimbursement falling within an employer-employee relationship, and if the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue survived for consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48992-DB ITA No. 127 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1.

PR. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) KORMANGALA, BANGALORE.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATION TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(1) KORMANGALA, BANGALORE.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E.I. SANMATHI., ADVOCATE) AND:

M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICE PVT LTD WING A, WING B AND GROUND FLOLOR TO 6TH FLOOR OF WING C HELIOS BUSINESS PARK, 150 OUTER RING KADUBEESANAHALLI,

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48992-DB ITA No. 127 of 2024

BANGALORE - 560103 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR

…RESPONDENT (BY MS. MAHIMA GOUD., ADVOCATE FOR MS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR., ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL PREFERRED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 29.04.2022 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSE'S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDING IN IT (IT) A NO.362/ BAN/2020 FOR AY 2011-12 (ANNEXURE-A).

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48992-DB ITA No. 127 of 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

The Revenue is in appeal calling in question the Order dated 29.04.2022 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Bengaluru in the appeal proceedings in IT [IT] A Nos.362 to 369 & 338 to 345/Bang/2020 proposing certain questions as substantial questions of law.

This appeal relates to the assessment years 2011-12. On behalf of the respondents, it is now placed on record that this Court has disposed of the Revenue's appeal on the same issue [proposed questions of law] for the relevant assessment years in ITA No.121 of 2024 connected with ITA Nos.124, 125 and 126 of 2024. In fact, a copy of the Order dated 03.09.2025 in the afore appeals is placed on record. The Co-ordinate Bench has observed thus while concluding that the proposed questions do not survive for consideration.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48992-DB ITA No. 127 of 2024

"On hearing learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue, we are of the considered view that the questions raised by the appellants-revenue are answered by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. Abbey Business Services India (P) Ltd., [(2020) 122 taxmann.com 174] and in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) and others vs. M/s. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., [(2025) SCC OnLine Kar 16629]. The Coordinate Benches after considering the clauses and the contentions raised by the appellants-Revenue has held that, such technical services provided by the assessee are in the nature of reimbursement which falls within the employer and employee relationship. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals would no more survive for consideration."

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48992-DB ITA No. 127 of 2024

In the light of the afore, the appeal stands rejected.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

AN/-

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →