Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40399-DB ITA No. 672 of 2019
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.672 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), PRESENT ADDRESS, JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095 …APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DILIP M., A/W SRI. RAVIRAJ Y.V., ADVOCATES)
Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40399-DB ITA No. 672 of 2019
AND:
M/S. INFORMATICA BUSINESS PVT. LTD., NO.66/1, BAGMANE COMMERZ 02, BAGMANE TECH PARK, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 093, PAN AABCI0762M …RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED)
THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO. 1285/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, 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:40399-DB ITA No. 672 of 2019
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 appellants/Revenue.
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 25.04.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.No.1285/Bang/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10.
This Court, admitted the appeal on 02.01.2020 to consider the following substantial question of law: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, tribunal is right in law in excluding certain comparables on the ground of functional dissimilarity even though Transfer Pricing Officer had chosen the same considering its functions which are similar to assessee on being satisfied of all the required tests
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40399-DB ITA No. 672 of 2019
and without doing an FAR analysis of the taxpayer with other cases?
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.
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.
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
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:40399-DB ITA No. 672 of 2019
kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.
Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
SMJ List No.: 4 Sl No.: 10