Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2015
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
ITA NO.317 OF 2012
BETWEEN
M/S. NCR CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED C/O MR.K.HARIHARAN, PARTNER, HARI & VASU, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 231, “KRISHNA”, 32-A CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 082. ... APPELLANT
(BY MS.MANJULA K.S. ADV., FOR MS. VANI H. ADV.,)
AND
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), 6TH FLOOR, R.P.BHAVAN, NO.14/3, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,)
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 22.05.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.545/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, PRAYING TO i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED
THEREIN ii).ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT PASSED IN ITA NO.545/BANG/2011.
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :
JUDGMENT
The Assessee has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal by order dated 25.05.2012. 2. The substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are as under: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings of the Appellate Authorities were perverse to the effect that the authorities have held that the payments made by the appellant to NCR Ireland towards purchase of software amounts to payment of royalty under the provisions of the Act without having regard to the provisions of DTAA between India and Ireland? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the orders passed by the respondent under Section 201(1) and Section 201(!A) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 by treating the appellant as an assessee- in-default? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing authority erred in levying surcharge while passing a rectification order without even issuing a show cause notice?”
This Court had an occasion to consider the said substantial questions of law in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samsung Electronics Private Limited and connected matters reported in 345 ITR 494 (Kar) decided on 15.10.2011 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sinopsis International Old Ltd., (IT Appeal Nos. 11 to 15 of 2008 dated (3.08.2010) and has answered the said substantial questions of law in favour of the Revenue.
In fact, the Tribunal in this case has followed the judgment of this Court in Samsung Electronics case. As the Tribunal has held the substantial questions of law in favour of
the Revenue, following the judgment of this Court, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in this appeal. However, it is submitted that the assessee has preferred Special Leave petition before the Apex Court challenging the said orders. In the event of the assessee succeeding in the appeals, then the Income Tax Officer shall proceed to pass consequential orders under Section 260(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE