PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MARLABS INNOVATIONS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/162/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01019973202124 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 questions of law were kept open for future adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the exclusion of comparables by the Transfer Pricing Officer based on functional dissimilarity and filters.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT's direction to exclude comparables based on functional dissimilarity and filters was perverse, and whether the revenue's appeal is maintainable due to tax effect limitations.

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:39758-DB ITA No. 162 of 2022

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. 162 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

1.

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANMATHI E I, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

M/S MARLABS INNOVATIONS PVT LTD., (SUCCESSOR OF MRARLABS SOFTWARE PVT LTD) NO.2, 1ST FLOOR, S R COMPLEX, TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, SG PALYA, BENGALURU-29. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI TATA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13/05/2020 PASSED IN ITA NO.544/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39758-DB ITA No. 162 of 2022

YEAR 2010-2011 PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT 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 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

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.Tata Krishna 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 13.05.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39758-DB ITA No. 162 of 2022

IT(TP)A.No.544/Bang/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11.

3.

This

Court,

admitted the appeal on 28.02.2022 to consider the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature as the Tribunal has directed the Transfer Pricing Officer/Assessing authority to exclude comparable’s on basis of functional dissimilarity even though the Transfer Pricing Officer has chosen comparable’s on basis of FAR analysis and in accordance with parameters set out Rule 10B of the I.T. Rules?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude comparable’s on basis of functional dissimilarity and onsite revenue filter even though the said comparable’s satisfied qualitative and quantitative filters applied by Transfer Pricing Officer?

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39758-DB ITA No. 162 of 2022

3.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude comparable on the basis Turnover filter without establishing its effect on the profit margin of the company and without acknowledging that there is no direct relationship between turnover and profit margin earned by the Company?”

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 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.

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39758-DB ITA No. 162 of 2022

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.: 0

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 →