THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BOSTIK INDIA PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/116/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01012776202330 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal, granting the Revenue liberty to revive it if the matter falls within the exceptions of the cited CBDT circulars. The substantial questions of law were kept open for adjudication in an appropriate proceeding.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that directed the adoption of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) over the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for determining the arm's length price of intra-group transactions. The assessee argued that the appeal should not be entertained due to a low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 09/2024.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal erred in directing the adoption of TNMM over CUP for transfer pricing, and whether the appeal is maintainable in light of CBDT circulars regarding tax effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 92C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41834-DB ITA No. 116 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH 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. 116 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560095

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(2) PRESENT ADDRESS ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560095 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DILIP M.,ADVOCATE A/W SRI. RAVIRAJ Y V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. BOSTIK INDIA PVT LTD NO 124/4 AND 124/4A KACHANAYAKANAHALLI OFF HOSUR ROAD BOMMASANDRA POST ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU 560099 PAN AABCB 4627N …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN.,ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41834-DB ITA No. 116 of 2023

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A NO. 626/BANG/2017 DATED 10/05/2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 ANNEXURE- D AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE DRP CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 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 learned counsel Sri Raviraj Y.V, for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri Ravi Raghavan, 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 10.05.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41834-DB ITA No. 116 of 2023

IT(TP)A.No.626/Bang/2017 for the assessment year 2012- 13, raising the following substantial questions of law: “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal in law directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer pricing Officer to adopt Transaction Net Margin Method as most appropriate method for ascertaining Arm's Length price as against CUP method adopted by Transfer Pricing Officer for intra group transaction by not appreciating that the said transactions were entered by the assessee by way of independent agreements and which cannot be aggregated with manufacturing activity under TNMM and that to when no payments were made in earlier years also?

ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in law directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to adopt Transaction Net Margin Method as most appropriate method for ascertaining Arm's Length Price as against CUP method adopted by Transfer Pricing Officer ignoring that when TPO had rightly chose CUP method considering factual matrix of the case and parameters set out in Section 92C and Rules framed there under?"

3.

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

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41834-DB ITA No. 116 of 2023

dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue.

4.

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.

5.

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

BS List No.: 4 Sl No.: 30

More judgments on Section 260-A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →