PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S MAXIM NDIA INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/48/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01056571201924 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal based on the tax effect threshold mentioned in the CBDT circular. Liberty was granted to the revenue to revive the appeal if it falls within exceptions to the circular.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning assessment year 2009-10. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, making the appeal not maintainable.

What were the issues?

The appeal raised multiple substantial questions of law concerning transfer pricing, eligibility for deduction under Section 10A, disallowance of interest on ECB loans, and depreciation on computers. The primary issue for disposal was the maintainability of the appeal due to tax effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 10A,Section 36(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39701-DB ITA No. 48 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 12(1) BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU …APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.SANMATHI.E.I., ADVOCATE)

AND: 1. M/S. MAXIM NDIA INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN PVT LTD., 4TH FLOOR, TOWER ‘B’ COMMERCIO @ MANTRI SURVEY NO.51/2, 51/3, DEVARABISANAHALLI, SURVEY NO.39/5, KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560103. PAN AACCM 9437E …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.NARENDRA KUMAR JAYANTILAL JAIN., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39701-DB ITA No. 48 of 2021

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 05/07/2019 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.287/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, 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; SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 05/07/2019 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.IT(TP)A NO.287/BANG/2014 (ANNEXURE-A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

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

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sanmathi.E.I., for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri.Narendra Kumar J. Jain for respondent/assessee.

2.

The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39701-DB ITA No. 48 of 2021

05.07.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.No.287/Bang/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10.

3.

This

Court,

admitted the appeal on 20.09.2021 to consider the following substantial questions of law: “1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that Kals Information Systems Ltd and Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., cannot be taken as comparable holding that these companies are functionally dissimilar without considering the FAR analysis and evidence brought on record by Transfer Pricing Officer?

2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in excluding/including certain comparable’s chosen by Transfer Pricing Officer even though the comparable’s chosen by said officer is in accordance with Rule 10B of the Act?

3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39701-DB ITA No. 48 of 2021

holding that, Infosys Technologies Limited, L&T Infortech Limited, Mindtree Limited (Seg.), Persistent Systems Ltd., R.S. Software Ltd., Sasken Communications Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd (Seg) and Zylog Systems Ltd cannot be taken as comparable holding that the size and turnover of the company are deciding factors for treating a company as a comparable?

4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the issue of the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 10A of the Act and restoring back the file to assessing officer for verification ignoring the fact that the assessee had not claimed such deduction under section 10A in original return of income and also no revised return was filed and when position of law being amply clear in this regard as laid down in the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment delivered in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd?

5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that the ECB loan used for purchase of land were utilized for continuation / expansion of the existing business and not for extension of business, hence disallowance of interest paid on the ECB loan under section 36(1)(iii) is deleted without

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39701-DB ITA No. 48 of 2021

appreciating that the word expansion is no different from extension of business and hence in this case, the interest disallowance is sustainable?

6) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that the Computers are plant and machinery and thus eligible for additional depreciation without appreciating that there is a separate block of 60% depreciation for Computers and Computer Software as prescribed under the rules hence additional depreciation of 20% would not apply to computers as it does not fall under Plant and Machinery?”

4.

Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the

- 6 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39701-DB ITA No. 48 of 2021

appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.

6.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the question of law is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

MPK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15

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 →