Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. M/S. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd., 381 Ir 413 Industries India Pvt. Ltd., 381 Ir 413

Digitallysigned byVANDANA SLocation:HIGH COURTOFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR -WRIT PETITION NO. 18686 OF 2023 (TIT) BETWEEN: WIPRO ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 WIPRO HOUSE, NO.8, 7TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 034 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHIEF TAXATION OFFICER, MR. SURESH PARAMESWARAN …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER 2(2)(2) BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. 3. THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT / DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME TAX /INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, JAWARHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM NEW DELHI - 110 003. 4. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SUSHAL TIWARI., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING ITBA/ TPO/F/92CA3/2023-24/1054716147(1) DATED 28/07/2023 PASSED BY R1 UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE AY 2020-21 (ANNEXURE-A) & ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 (Transfer Pricing Officer) – TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 28.07.2023 and for other reliefs: “a) Quashing the order bearing ITBA/TPO/F/92CA3/2023- 24/1054716147(1) dated 28.07.2023 passed by Respondent No.1 under section 92 CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the AY 2020-21 (Annexure – A) and b) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 – TPO committed an error in passing the impugned order without considering or appreciating the relevant statutory provisions as well as the judgment of various High Courts as stated below: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs M/s. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd., 381 IR 413 Industries India Pvt. Ltd., 381 IR 413 2. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Tara Jewels Exports Pvt. Ltd. Order dated 05.10.2025 in ITA No.1814/2013 (HC-Bombay) Ltd. Order dated 05.10.2025 in ITA No.1814/2013 (HC-Bombay) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Keihin Panalfa Ltd. 381 ITR 407 (Delhi) 407 (Delhi) 4. CIT vs Petro Araldite Pvt Ltd., (Bombay) Order dated 24.11.2015. 24.11.2015. 5. CIT vs Hindustan Uniliever Ltd., 394 ITR 73 (Bombay) 6. CIT vs ALSTOM Projects India Ltd., 394 ITR 141 (Bombay) 7. CIT vs Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 414 ITR 704 (Bombay) (Bombay) 8. CIT-I vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd., SLP(C) No.(s) 22381/2017 Order dated 29.10.2018 (SC) Order dated 29.10.2018 (SC) 9. CIT vs Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd., SLP (civil) Diary No.2234/2018 Order dated 05.02.2018 (SC). No.2234/2018 Order dated 05.02.2018 (SC). 2. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Tara Jewels Exports Pvt. Ltd. Order dated 05.10.2025 in ITA No.1814/2013 (HC-Bombay) Ltd. Order dated 05.10.2025 in ITA No.1814/2013 (HC-Bombay) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Keihin Panalfa Ltd. 381 ITR 407 (Delhi) 407 (Delhi) 4. CIT vs Petro Araldite Pvt Ltd., (Bombay) Order dated 24.11.2015. 24.11.2015. 5. CIT vs Hindustan Uniliever Ltd., 394 ITR 73 (Bombay) 6. CIT vs ALSTOM Projects India Ltd., 394 ITR 141 (Bombay) 7. CIT vs Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 414 ITR 704 (Bombay) (Bombay) 8. CIT-I vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd., SLP(C) No.(s) 22381/2017 Order dated 29.10.2018 (SC) Order dated 29.10.2018 (SC) 9. CIT vs Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd., SLP (civil) Diary No.2234/2018 Order dated 05.02.2018 (SC). No.2234/2018 Order dated 05.02.2018 (SC). 4. It is submitted that non consideration of the relevant statutory provisions as well as the law laid down by the various High Courts which have been confirmed by the Apex Court would vitiate the impugned order which deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the respondent No.1 – TPO for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents would submit that there is not merit in the petition and same is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that if sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner who did not produce the aforesaid judgments and as such they are not entitled to any indulgence in the present petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid judgments relied upon the petitioner which were rendered prior to the impugned order have not been considered by the respondent No.1 – TPO before passing the impugned order which also does not take into account the relevant statutory provisions before passing the impugned order. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merit/demerits of the rival contentions and in order to enable the first respondent – TPO to pass fresh orders after consideration of the relevant statutory provisions and the judgments of various High Courts referred to supra, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petitioner is hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 (Transfer Pricing Officer) – TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 – TPO for reconsideration afresh bearing in mind the aforesaid judgments and the relevant statutory provisions, in this regard. (iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter, are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, case law before the first respondent who shall consider the same and proceed further, in accordance with law. (vi) It is made clear that the respondent shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear him and proceed further in the matter. Sd/- JUDGE DHA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0