Karnataka High Court
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Cit ... vs M/S Autodesk India Pvt Ltd on 24 September, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:39768-DB
ITA No. 339 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH 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. 339 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIT (A)
5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,
80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU- 560095.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE 1(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR,
BMTC BUILDING,
80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU- 560095.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAVIRAJ Y. V., ADV. A/W
SRI DILIP M., ADV.)
Digitally
signed by AND:
BHARATHI S
Location:
HIGH M/S. AUTODESK INDIA PVT LTD.,
COURT OF UNIT A-4, A-WING, 2ND FLOOR,
KARNATAKA
DIVYASHREE CHAMBERS,
LANGFORD ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560025.
PAN: AABCA 6924B.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADV.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME
TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21.12.2018
PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.220/BANG/2016, FOR THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:39768-DB
ITA No. 339 of 2019
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012, PRAYING TO I. FORMULATE
THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE; II.
ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN
IT(TP)A NO.220/BANG/2016 DATED 21.12.2018 FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 ANNEXURE-D CONFIRMING THE
ORDER OF THE DRP AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-
1(1)(1), BANGALORE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDER, 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.Raviraj.Y.V., along with Sri.Dilip.M., learned counsel for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar for 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 21.12.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Bengaluru (for short, 'Appellate -3- NC: 2024:KHC:39768-DB ITA No. 339 of 2019 Authority') in IT(TP)A.No.220/Bang/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12.
3. This Court, admitted the appeal on 18.10.2019 to consider the following substantial questions of law:
"1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in rejecting the comparable companies, M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., M/s. ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd., M/s. Infosys Technologies Ltd., M/s. Tata Elxsi Ltd., M/s. Persistent Systems and Solutions Ltd., and M/s. Persistent Systems Ltd., following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Applied Material (I) Private Ltd., in IT(TP)A.No.17 & 39/Bang/2016 without analyzing the facts in depth and ignoring evidence brought on record by TPO?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in rejecting the comparable companies, M/s. E- Infochips Ltd., and M/s. E-Zest Solutions Ltd., following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Commonscope Networks (I) Pvt. Ltd., in IT(TP)A.No.166 & 181/Bang/2016 without -4- NC: 2024:KHC:39768-DB ITA No. 339 of 2019 analyzing the facts in depth and ignoring evidence brought on record by TPO?
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in rejecting M/s. Larsen & Tubro Infotech Ltd., on the grounds of functional dissimilarity without analyzing the facts in depth ignoring evidence brought on record by TPO?
4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in rejecting M/s. ICC International Agencies Ltd., by relying on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Electronic Imaging (I) Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT (2017) 85 Taxmann. Com 124 (Bangalore- Trib) without analyzing the facts in depth ignoring evidence brought on record by TPO? "
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:39768-DB ITA No. 339 of 2019
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 MPK CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0