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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/26/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01006532202502 April 2025Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law. The Tribunal's decision was based on a Co-ordinate Bench decision which was followed scrupulously.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that favored the assessee, granting relief. The ITAT had followed previous High Court decisions in similar cases.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the disallowance of depreciation on IP rights purchase, considering the failure to deduct TDS, by relying on previous court decisions.

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 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13747-DB ITA No. 26 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095

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 FOR SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATES)

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 PAN:AAICS 6290F REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. MANASA ANANTHAN, FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATES)

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13747-DB ITA No. 26 of 2025

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30.05.2024 PASSED IN ITA/IT(TP)A NO.484/BANG/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA/IT(TP)A NO.484/BANG/2019 DATED 30.05.2024, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 ANNEXURE A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BENGALURU.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) The Revenue has filed this appeal for calling in question the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 30.05.2024, for the assessment year 2014–15; the assessee's appeal in ITA/IT(TP)A No.484/Bang/2019 having been favoured, relief has been accorded.

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13747-DB ITA No. 26 of 2025

2.

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

3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal involves no substantial question of law. A Co-ordinate Bench decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 V/s. Tally Solutions Private Limited (2021) 123 taxmann.com 21, has been scrupulously followed by the Tribunal. While granting relief to the Assessee. In view of the above, we do not find any merits in the appeal and

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13747-DB ITA No. 26 of 2025

accordingly, the same is dismissed, costs having been made easy.

Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

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 →