PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SANYO BPL P LTD

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.923 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6

BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE-12(3), BANGALORE. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. E.I. SANMATHI , ADV.,) AND: 1. M/S. SANYO BPL P. LTD.,

JUBLEE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR

NO.45, MUSEUM ROAD

BANGALORE-560025

PAN No.AAJCSO 332B. 2. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

OF M/S. SANYO BPL PVT. LTD.,

CORPORATE BHAWAN

NO.26-27, 12TH FLOOR

M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001

(AMENDED AS PER COURT

ORDER DATED 2.1.2020). ... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. K.P. KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. K.S. MAHADEVAN, ADV., FOR R2) - - -

2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.06.2017 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.1625/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PRAYING TO: (i) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. (ii) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 09.06.2017 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO IT(TP)A NO.1625/BANG/2014 FOR A.Y.2007- 08, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.11.2018 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the addition of Rs.14.06 lakhs made by assessing authority as short term capital gain by adopting guidance value of the property by erroneously holding that the assessing authority ought to

3 have referred the matter to DVO for determination guidance value as per Section 50C of the Act even when same is not mandatory? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to carry out the working capital adjustment on the basis of actual workings on the financials of the final companies remained as comparable without appreciating that Transfer Pricing Officer had rightly passed order under Section 92CA whereby no adjustment of working capital was granted since the assessee had failed to give proper justification and detailed computation of adjustment of fixed expense and as such the Tribunal ought to have upheld the approach of the TPO in not granting the working capital adjustment?". 2. When the matter was taken up today, learned Senior counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of the order dated 20.04.2017 passed in OLR No.15/2016 by which a Bench of this Court has directed winding up of the assessee. It is also pointed out from paragraph 4 of the order that no

4 objection certificate has been obtained from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle VI, Bengaluru, vide communication dated 28.06.2016 stating that there are no arrears of tax outstanding in the case of the company in member's voluntary winding up. It is therefore submitted that the questions of law involved in this appeal have been rendered academic. 3. In view of the aforesaid submission, the appeal is disposed of with liberty to revive the same if the occasion so arises. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV