What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the assessee had not challenged the ITAT's finding on the RPT filter, the question did not arise for consideration. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The assessee had pleaded before the ITAT that the Related Party Transaction filter should be 15% instead of 25% applied by the TPO. The Tribunal did not accept this plea, and the assessee did not challenge this finding. The assessee then filed a review petition stating the question was not answered.

What were the issues?

Whether a review petition is maintainable when the assessee failed to challenge a specific finding of the ITAT, and the review is sought on the ground that the question was not answered.

PCIT(A) vs M/S Phoenix Lamps Ltd | Karnataka High Court 2022

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:28674-DB RP No. 344 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 344 OF 2022

BETWEEN :

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12(1) BANGALORE. …PETITIONERS

(BY SHRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND :

M/S. MPHASIS LTD. ABACUS SQUARE BAGMANE TECH PARK C.V. RAMAN NAGAR BYRASANDRA BANGALORE. PAN: AAACB6820C …RESPONDENT

(BY Ms. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) . . . .

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/01/2021 IN ITA NO. 918/2017 AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER- APPELLANT TO BE HEARD INDEPENDENTLY AFRESH AND ETC.

Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:28674-DB RP No. 344 of 2022

THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard. Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned Advocate for the respondent.

At the outset adverting to para 11.4 of ITAT’s order, Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned Advocate for the assessee pointed out that assessee had pleaded before the ITAT1 that the applicability of Related Party Transaction filter could be 15% as against 25% of the sales applied by the TPO2 and the same has not been accepted by the Tribunal. Assessee had not challenged this finding. In that view of the matter, this review petition is filed on the ground that the said question has not been answered.

In view of the fact that the assessee had not challenged the finding recorded by the ITAT, the said question does not arise for consideration. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 2 Transfer Pricing Officer

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28674-DB RP No. 344 of 2022

Having considered the matter both on merits and delay, review petition is dismissed.

No costs. Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE SPS

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S PHOENIX LAMPS 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