PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SYNAMEDIA LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/109/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01013627202419 August 2025Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. Since the issue was concluded, no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's order which set aside additions made to the assessee's income. The ITAT relied on a Supreme Court judgment regarding the taxability of receipts under Section 9(1)(vi) and the India-UK DTAA.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT's order was perverse in setting aside additions by relying on a Supreme Court judgment, especially when a review petition was pending, and in disregarding the AO's interpretation of the India-UK DTAA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 9(1)(vi)

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:32476-DB ITA No. 109 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 109 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

1.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(2) KORMANGALA, BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL)

AND:

1.

M/S SYNAMEDIA LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NDS LIMITED) BLOCK, No.9A AND 9B PRITECH PARK, SURVEY No.51-64/4, SARJAPUR OUTER RING ROAD, BELLANDUR VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560103, PAN: AABCN2524L, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32476-DB ITA No. 109 of 2024

THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 12/11/2021 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'B' BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE'S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN IT(IT)A No.504/BANG/2017 FOR A.Y.2012-2013 (ANNEXURE-A).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants-Revenue, and Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Assessee.

2.

This appeal is filed by the Revenue, challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru, in IT(IT)A No.504/Bang/2017, dated 12.11.2021, relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32476-DB ITA No. 109 of 2024

3.

The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order is perverse in nature in setting aside the additions made in assessment order by relying the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd V/s CIT (reported in 432 ITR page 471) without appreciating that in the case of assessee are not similar and even when Review Petition filed by Revenue is pending for adjudication before Supreme Court in case Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in disregarding the findings rendered by assessing officer that the provisions DTAA between India-UK with regard to Royalty are to be interpreted in harmony with the Section 9 of the Act?"

4.

The Tribunal, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income-

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32476-DB ITA No. 109 of 2024

tax and Another1, held that the receipts of the Assessee are not taxable under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as well as under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the United Kingdom. It appears that the Revenue has preferred the present appeal in view of the review petition filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited (supra) and other connected matters.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Assessee submits that, in certain cases forming part of the batch in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited (supra), the review petitions have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the Revenue could not dispute the submission.

6.

Upon perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited (supra). Since the issue stands concluded by the said judgment, no

1 (2021) 432 ITR 471

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32476-DB ITA No. 109 of 2024

substantial question of law arises for consideration before this Court.

7.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

More judgments on Section 9(1)(vi)

All 1,705 judgments and leading authorities on Section 9(1)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →