THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (a) vs. M/S GXS INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/193/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC01025794202027 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal with liberty to the revenue to revive it if exceptions under relevant CBDT circulars apply. The substantial questions of law were kept open for future adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning transfer pricing for AY 2011-12. The assessee argued that the appeal should not be entertained due to a low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal correctly excluded comparables in transfer pricing without detailed analysis, and if the appeal is maintainable given the tax effect and CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40448-DB ITA No. 193 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.193 OF 2020 BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (a) 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(1)(2), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DILIP.M., ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. RAVI RAJ Y V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. GXS INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PVT. LTD., 436, INFINITY OFF KORAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR, IRR, CHALLAGHATTA-DOMLUR, BENGALURU-560 071 PAN:AABCG 7972P …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.R.VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI.ANKUR P.D., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40448-DB ITA No. 193 of 2020

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A NO.64/BANG/2016 DATED 07/02/2020 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 (ANNEXURE-D) AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

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

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Dilip.M., along with Sri. Raviraj.Y.V., learned counsel for the appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri. K.R.Vasudevan along with Sri. Ankur.P.D., learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

2.

The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.No.64/Bang/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12.

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40448-DB ITA No. 193 of 2020

3.

This Court, admitted the appeal on 11.02.2021 to consider the following substantial questions of law: "i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that a comparable can be excluded on entity basis without determining the specific characteristics of the transactions; FAR, contractual terms and market conditions as prescribed in Rule 10B(2) of the Act ?

ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in directing transfer Pricing Officer/assessing authority to exclude certain comparable’s even when parameters of analysis prescribed under Rule 10B of I.T. Rules are fully satisfied by TPO while determining final list of comparable’s ?

iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in not acknowledging that there is no direct relationship between brand value and the margin earned by the Company and brand may generate the revenue of the Company but does not increase the profit margin ?"

4.

Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40448-DB ITA No. 193 of 2020

issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.

6.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the question of law is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

SMJ List No.: 4 Sl No.: 31

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 →