PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. INFORMATICA LLC

PDF · subscribers
ITA/277/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01059493202408 October 2025Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no reason to differ from the Tribunal's conclusion, as the facts were similar to a previously decided case. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of in line with the prior judgment.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is aggrieved by the Tribunal's order concerning the assessee's liability to pay royalty. The Tribunal's decision was based on its own prior ruling for a different assessment year, which was also under challenge.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal's decision on royalty liability, based on its own prior ruling, was correct. The court also considered the impact of a pending review petition before the Apex Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39645-DB ITA No. 277 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 277 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

1.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.

2.

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(2), KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E. I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) AND:

M/S. INFORMATICA LLC 2100, SEAPORT BOULEVARD REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES, C/O. INFORMATICA,

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39645-DB ITA No. 277 of 2024

BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NO.66/1, BAGMANE COMMERZ O2, BAGMANE TECH PARK, BANGALORE-560 093.

…RESPONDENT

(BY MS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.05.2024 AND CORRIGENDUM ORDER DATED 30.05.2024 PASSED IN IT(IT)A NO.1099/BANG/2023, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021- 22, PRAYING TO., DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAE AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HONBLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 09.05.2024 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH BANGALORE AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEES CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN IT(IT)A NO. 1099/BANG/2023 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 21-22 (ANNEXURE A) AND CORRIGENDUM DATED 30.05.2024 AS ANNEXURE A1.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39645-DB ITA No. 277 of 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

The Revenue is aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2024 in IT(IT)A No.1099/Bang/2023 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "C" Bench, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'], and the Tribunal's order is about the assessee's liability to pay royalty.

It remains undisputed that the Tribunal's decision is based on the finding in similar circumstances in the assessee's own case but relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-16 and this order is called in question before this Court in I.T.A.No.672/2023 which stands disposed of by a separate order with this Court opining that there would no reason to make a difference in the conclusion of the facts which are same and when a final conclusion is reached. This appeal must also therefore be disposed of.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39645-DB ITA No. 277 of 2024

At this stage, Mr. E. I. Sanmathi, a learned Senior standing counsel for the appellants, submits that liberty may be reserved to reopen if the review filed before the Apex Court in Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 124 is successful but this Court must, as is observed by this Court in I.T.A.No.672/2023, opines that no case is made out for reserving liberty. As such, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →