THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MPHASIS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/443/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01041235202201 April 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that similar substantial questions of law had been answered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Following this precedent, the High Court held that the ITAT's order was correct.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning assessment year 2008-2009. The appeal raised questions about the limitation period for passing orders under Section 201 for non-residents.

What were the issues?

The key issues were whether orders under Section 201 for non-residents were barred by limitation and whether the Tribunal correctly applied the 'reasonable time limit' based on judicial precedents rather than legislation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:13117-DB ITA No. 443 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.443 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, 4TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095

2.

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1) 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560 095 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI Y.V.RAVI RAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S MPHASIS LTD. BAGMANE WORLD TECHNOLOGY CENTRE WTC 3, BLOCK B, 1ST FLOOR, K R PURAM DODDENEKUNDI BENGALURU 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.MANISH KANTH, ADVOCATE FOR MS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:13117-DB ITA No. 443 of 2022

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.17/BANG/2014 DATED 17/01/2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

1.

Heard Sri Y.V.Ravi Raj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Manish Kanth, learned Counsel for Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2.

This appeal is by the revenue challenging the order dated 17.01.2022 in IT(IT)A No.17/Ban g/2014 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, relating to the assessment year 2008-2009.

3.

The following substantial questions of law have been raised by the appellants in the above appeal: "1. Whether the Tribunal was right in concluding that the orders passed u/s.201 were barred by limitation on the basis of "reasonable time limit" when no time limit has been prescribed by the Parliament in case of non-residents?

2.

Whether Tribunal was correct in considering the "reasonable time limit" on the basis of judgment of

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:13117-DB ITA No. 443 of 2022

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide [2016] Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs.UOI (taxmann.com 256) and not on the basis of legislation as it exists?

3.

Whether Tribunal is justified in ignoring the memorandum to Finance Bill 2009 clearly states that no time limits are prescribed in case where deductee is a non-resident?

4.

Whether Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in holding that no proceedings under section 201 of the Act were pending before the Assessing Officer as on 01.04.2010 and by the time the proceedings under section 201 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under section 201 of the Act on 05.02.2013, it was already become barred by limitation, therefore orders passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) are invalid when the orders were passed in accordance with parameters set out in said sections and when no time limit has been prescribed by the Parliament in case of non-residents?"

4.

It is brought to our notice that the above substantial questions of law are answered by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Another vs. Union of India and Another [2016 SCC OnLine Del 6338]. Subsequently, this Court by following the above cited order of the High Court of Delhi has disposed of several appeals and one such appeal is ITA No.5/2023 disposed of on 06.02.2023.

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:13117-DB ITA No. 443 of 2022

5.

In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed. The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE hkh.

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →