Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39694-DB ITA No. 480 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. 480 OF 2022 BETWEEN:
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.)
AND:
M/S. YODLEE INFOTECH PVT. LTD., PRESTIGE TECHNOLOGY PARK 1ST FLOOR, MERCURY (2B) BLOCK, SARJAPUR MARATHAHALLI RING ROAD KADUBEESANAHALLI BANGALORE-560103 PAN: AACCY1273E. …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NAGESWAR RAO D. D., ADV. (THROUGH V/C))
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 16/11/2021 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.513/BANG/2016, FOR THE
Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39694-DB ITA No. 480 of 2022
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012, PRAYING TO (A) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE COURT AS DEEMED FIT 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.Sanmathi.E.I., for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri.Nageshwar Rao.D.D., for respondent/assessee through video conference.
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:
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39694-DB ITA No. 480 of 2022
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing application of APA margins to the year preceding the years under the agreement entered into by CBDT?
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
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39694-DB ITA No. 480 of 2022
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 kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.
Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
MPK CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5