PR.COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S YODLEE INFOTECH PVT LTD

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCL-7(1)(2) BMTC BUILDING KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANMATHI E. I., ADV.)

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 16.11.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.No.513/Bang/2016 for the assessment year 2011- 12, raising the following substantial questions of law:

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that margins agreed vide APA are applicable to years where CBDT has explicitly denied a roll back to the taxpayer i.e., in this case AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 as roll back option was allowed only for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15?

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature in allowing margins agreed vide APA to be applied/or non-APA years without examining the nature of transactions & nature of business by merely presuming that they would have been the same for all years?”

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

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 kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.