THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) vs. M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the appeal based on a CBDT circular regarding tax effect. The court granted the Revenue liberty to revive the appeal if exceptions under the circular apply, keeping the questions of law open.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that held the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on payments made to non-residents. The Revenue argued the ITAT's decision was perverse and that the payments should be considered 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the ITAT erred in holding no TDS liability on payments to non-residents, particularly concerning the definition of 'Royalty' and DTAA provisions. The appeal was also considered in light of the tax effect stipulated by CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39388-DB ITA No. 16 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. 16 OF 2022 BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560095
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(2) 4TH 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. URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PVT LTD 1ST, 2ND , 3RD FLOOR NO. 259 AND 276 AMARJYOTHI HBCS LAYOUT DOMLUR, BENGALURU 560071 PAN: AABCU4143N …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39388-DB ITA No. 16 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 ABOVE, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(IT)A NO.619/BANG/2020 DATED 17/08/2021 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 Sri Sandeep Huilgol, for the respondent/assessee.
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 17.08.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(IT)A.No.619/Bang/2020 for the assessment year 2017-18, raising the following substantial questions of law:
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39388-DB ITA No. 16 of 2022
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal order can be said as perverse in nature holding that assessee is not liable to deduct TDS on payments made to non-residents by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd., v/s CIT when facts of the present case are entirely different and law laid down in said case cannot be applied to present case?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law allowing appeal of the assessee by holding that there was no obligation on part of assessee to deduct TDS on payments made to Facebook Ireland, Ireland, Rocket Science Group, LLC, US and Amazon Web Services, Inc non-resident companies on the ground that the payments cannot be regarded as ‘Royalty’ ignoring that nature of usage of technology, model or process and equipment’s are covered by Explanation 2(iii) to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and therefore assessee ought to have deducted TDS on such payments.?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law allowing appeal of the assessee by holding that there was no obligation on part of assessee to deduct TDS on payments made to non-resident companies without analyzing the facts and materials of the present case with provisions of respective DTAA’s? ”
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39388-DB ITA No. 16 of 2022
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 questions of law are 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.: 0
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026