THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SAMSUNG R AND D INSTITUTE

PDF · subscribers
ITA/25/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01006332202525 June 2025Bench: S.G.PANDIT,T.M.NADAF4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial question of law raised by the revenue was already answered against them by a co-ordinate bench in a similar case. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that set aside the disallowance of depreciation on purchased Intellectual Property Rights. The disallowance was based on the failure to deduct TDS on these payments.

What were the issues?

Whether depreciation on purchased Intellectual Property Rights is disallowable under Section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS on payments, and if prior co-ordinate bench decisions bind the current appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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:22126-DB ITA No. 25 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.

2.

THE JOINT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ, ADV.)

AND:

M/S. SAMSUNG R AND D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PVT. LTD., 2870, PHOENIX BUILDING BAGMANE CONSTELLATION BUSINESS PARK OUTER RING ROAD, DODDANEKUNDI CIRCLE MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU-560 037 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADV. FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADV.)

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22126-DB ITA No. 25 of 2025

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA/IT(TP)/A NO.1092/BANG/2019 DATED 30.05.2024 FOR ASSESSMENT 2012-13 ANNEXURE A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLANT COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BENGALURU.

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 T.M.NADAF

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

Though the matter is listed for orders with regard to non-compliance of office objections, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2.

Heard learned counsel Sri.Y.V.Ravi Raj for appellant and learned counsel Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar for respondent. Perused the entire appeal papers.

3.

The above appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 questioning the correctness of

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22126-DB ITA No. 25 of 2025

the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in ITA/IT(TP)/A No.1092/BANG/2019 dated 30.05.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13 (Annexure-A) with a prayer to confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Joint/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru.

4.

The above appeal is filed raising the following substantial question of law:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the disallowance of claim of depreciation on purchase of Intellectual Property Rights made by assessing authority under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as they had failed to deduct TDS on payments made in respect of purchase of intellectual property rights by following Apex Court decision in case Engineering Analysis Centre reported in (2021) 125 taxmann.com 42 and decision in the case of PCIT Vs Tally Solutions Pvt Ltd reported in (2021) 123 taxmann.com 21 which has not

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22126-DB ITA No. 25 of 2025

reached finality and even when the ingredients of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are satisfied in case of assessee?"

5.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal papers, we are of the considered opinion that the above substantial question of law is answered against the revenue by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 7 Vs. Tally Solutions Private Limited (2021) 123 taxman.com 21.

6.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly appeal stands rejected.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →