UNION OF INDIA vs. ORIGAMI CELLULO PRIVATE LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
WA/38/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC01001823202023 February 2021Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal, granting liberty to the revenue to revive it if it falls within exceptions under CBDT circulars. The substantial questions of law were kept open for future adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the exclusion of comparable companies and the grant of working capital adjustment in a transfer pricing matter.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT was correct in excluding comparable companies and denying working capital adjustment in a transfer pricing case. The appeal was also considered in light of CBDT circulars regarding tax effect.

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:40447-DB ITA No. 38 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.38 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. …APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. DILIP M, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. RAVIRAJ Y.V., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40447-DB ITA No. 38 of 2020

AND:

M/S. IPASS INDIA PVT. LTD., LEVEL 5, PRESTIGE SOLITAIRE, BRUNTON ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025. PAN-AABCG 3659H …RESPONDENT

(RESPONDENT-SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O 05.11.2020)

THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19/07/2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.2093/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE 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

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40447-DB ITA No. 38 of 2020

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.

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 19.07.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.2093/Bang/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13.

3.

This Court, admitted the appeal on 07.12.2020 to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not accepting Genesis International Corporation Limited / Infosys Limited / Larsen and Toubro Infotech Ltd / Persistent Systems Limited as a comparable when it satisfies all the qualitative and quantitative filters applied by the Transfer Pricing Officer?

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40447-DB ITA No. 38 of 2020

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in excluding certain comparable's from list of comparable on the ground of functional dissimilarity by following its earlier orders when the said companies satisfied qualitative and quantitative filers applied by Transfer Pricing Officer and they are functionally similar to that of assessee?

3.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that negative working capital adjustment cannot be granted in the case of the assessee without considering that allowing working capital adjustment would result into better comparison?"

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

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40447-DB ITA No. 38 of 2020

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.: 18

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →