THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ANZ OPERATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/240/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01016467202223 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal based on the tax effect being below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. Liberty was granted to the revenue to revive the appeal if exceptions under relevant circulars applied.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The appeal questioned whether the Tribunal's consideration of a 60-day realization period from an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) was applicable to the assessment year in question.

What were the issues?

Whether an APA clause for a specific period can be applied to other assessment years, and if the appeal should be entertained based on tax effect thresholds.

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:39421-DB ITA No. 240 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD 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. 240 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560095

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1(1) 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560095 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y V.,ADVOCATE A/W SRI. DILIP M .,ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S ANZ OPERATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD SEZ UNIT, RMZ ECOWORLD CAMPUS 5A-GROUND FLOOR AND LEVEL 4 TO 9, SARJAPUR MARATHAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD, DEVARABEESANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560103 PAN AABCA9002G …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39421-DB ITA No. 240 of 2022

THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A NO. 377/BANG/2021 DATED 28/10/2021 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 ANNEXURE-D AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE DRP CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU AND ETC.

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 Raviraj Y.V, along with learned counsel Sri Dilip M, for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Smt Tanmayee Rajkumar, 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 28.10.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.No.377/Bang/2021 for

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39421-DB ITA No. 240 of 2022

the assessment year 2015-16, raising the following substantial questions of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal order can be said as perverse in nature as Tribunal has considered the realization period of 60 days which has been agreed under Advance Pricing Agreement for the realization of invoices pertaining to international transactions in ITeS Segment effective from 1/4/2017 onwards to the international transactions relating to A.Y.2015-16 ignoring that in Advance Pricing Agreement, it has been specifically mentioned that only for international transaction from 1/4/2017 onwards, a realization period of 60 days shall be allowed to the assessee in respect of transactions in IEST Segment and for each year, a clause which has been specifically applied for an assessment year cannot be applied by and large to any other assessment year"?

3.

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.

4.

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.

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39421-DB ITA No. 240 of 2022

5.

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

ND List No.: 3 Sl No.: 32

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 →