THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SANYO INDIA PVT 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.383 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE-560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

NO.45, 2ND FLOOR

JUBLEE BUILDING

MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE

PAN No.AAJCS 0730M. 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 15.12.2020). ... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. NAGESHWARA RAO, ADV., FOR R1 V/O DTD:15.12.2020 MR. ANUPAM AGARWAL, ADV., FOR R2) - - -

2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27.03.2015 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.224/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, 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 27.03.2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'B' BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE'S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN IT(TP)A NO.224/BANG/2014 FOR A.Y.2009-10. 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 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.10.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the TPO to adopt RP method and rejecting the TNM method adopted by the TPO, without ascertaining its nexus with the business activity of the taxpayer?"

3 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the TPO to adopt RP method ignoring the fact that the marketing expenses/recovery of expenses cannot be bench-marked under the RP method and the same are to be bench-marked only if TNM method is adopted as the Most Appropriate Method?" 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has filed a memo along with a copy of the order dated 19.08.2016 passed in OLR No.8/2016 by which a Bench of this Court has directed winding up of the assessee. It is also pointed out from paragraph 5 of the order that no objection certificate has been obtained from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle VI, Bengaluru, vide communication dated 06.03.2015 stating that there are no outstanding demand / dues against the company. It is therefore, submitted that the questions of law involved in this appeal have been rendered academic.

4 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