THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (a) vs. M/S GXAS INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/194/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC01025796202027 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal, granting liberty to the revenue to revive it if it falls within exceptions of CBDT circulars. The substantial questions of law were kept open for future adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal raised questions about the exclusion of comparables in transfer pricing analysis and the relationship between brand value and profit margins.

What were the issues?

Whether comparables can be excluded without detailed analysis of transactional characteristics and whether brand value directly impacts profit margins in transfer pricing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40448-DB ITA No. 194 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH 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.194 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1.

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

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2)2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DILIP.M., ADV. A/W SRI. RAVIRAJ.Y.V., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40448-DB ITA No. 194 of 2020

AND:

M/S GXAS INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PVT LTD 436, INFINITY, OFF KORAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR, IRR CHALLAGHATTA-DOMLUR, BENGALURU-560071. PAN: AABCG 7972P

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K.R.VASUDEVAN, ADV. A/W SRI. ANKUR.P.D., ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA/INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260- A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 07/02/2020 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO. 73/BANG/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 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

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40448-DB ITA No. 194 of 2020

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

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Dilip.M., along with Sri. Raviraj.Y.V., learned counsel for the appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri. K.R.Vasudevan along with Sri. Ankur.P.D., learned counsel for the 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 07.02.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.No.73/Bang/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12.

3.

This

Court,

admitted the appeal on 17.12.2020 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 law in

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40448-DB ITA No. 194 of 2020

holding that a comparable can be excluded on entity basis without determining the specific characteristics of the transactions; FAR contractual terms and market conditions as prescribed in Rule 10B(2) of the Act?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in directing Transfer Pricing Officer/assessing authority to exclude certain comparable's even when parameters of analysis prescribed under Rule 10B of I.T. Rules are fully satisfied by TPO while determining final list of comparable's?

3.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in not acknowledging that there is no direct relationship between brand value and the margin earned by the Company and brand may generate the revenue of the Company but does not increase the profit margin?"

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

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40448-DB ITA No. 194 of 2020

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 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

SMJ

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 →