What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised in the present appeal had already been answered in prior judgments. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of in terms of those previous judgments.

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondent-assessee argued that the issue in the present appeal was already decided in previous related appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the issue raised in the appeal has already been decided in previous related cases.

PCIT vs M/S Micro Focus Marigalante Ltd | Karnataka High Court 2025

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34219-DB ITA No. 260 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 260 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2), KORMANGALA BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.)

AND:

M/S. MICRO FOCUS MARIGALANTE LTD., SANJAY KUMAR V M MICRO FOCUS SOFTWARE AND SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.661/ 6TH FLOOR OLYMPIA BUILDING, BLOCK ‘A’ LAUREL, BAGMANE TECH PARK C V RAMAN NAGAR, NO.65/2, BYSANDRA, BANGALORE-560093, KARNATAKA PAN: AAFCE4838G. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.P.D. ANKUR, ADV.)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22/3/2024 PASSED IN IT(IT)A NO.905/BANG/ 2023, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-2022, PRAYING TO 1).DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE COURT

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34219-DB ITA No. 260 of 2024

AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 22/3/2024 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN IT (IT)A NO.905/BANG/2023 FOR A.Y. 2021-22 (ANNEXURE-A) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Heard learned senior standing counsel Sri.E.I.Sanmathi for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri.P.D.Ankur for respondent who has taken notice.

Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the issue raised in the present appeal is answered in ITA.No.279/2024 and ITA.No.715/2023, disposed on 23.08.2025.

The same is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants/Revenue. Learned counsel for the

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34219-DB ITA No. 260 of 2024

appellants/Revenue submits that Clause 26 at paragraph 9.2 of the assessment order dated 22.09.2023 (Annexure-C) is distinguishing factor

However, we are of the considered view that the issue raised herein is already answered and the present appeal stands disposed of in terms of the judgment in ITA.No.279/2024 and ITA.No.715/2023.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) vs. M/S MICRO FOCUS MARIGALANTE LTD

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments