Income Tax v. In Fact, The Tribunal In This Case Has Followed The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17 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 BEITWRB M/S. NCR CORPORATION INDIAPRIVATE LIMITEDC/O MR.K.HARIHARAN,PARTNER, HARI & VASU,|CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS231, “KRISHNA”, 32-A CROSS, T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,|BANGALORE-560 082. .. APPELLANT (BY Ms.MANJULA K.s. ADV., FOR Ms. VANI H. ADV.,) AND THER DRBPUTY DIRBCTOR OFINCOME TAXUNTERNATIONAL TAXATION)|CIRCLE-1(1), 6[‘T]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 ITANO.545/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, PRAYINGTO 1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN 11).ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNEDORDER OF THE ITAT PASSED IN ITA NO.545/BANG/2011.| THISITACOMINGONKOR,ORDERSTHIS|DAY, |VINEFET SARAJDERELIVERED THERE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The Assessee has preferred this appeal against the) order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal by order dated 25.05.2012. — aThe substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are as under: OFWhether on the facts and im _ thcircumstances of the case, the findings of the Appellate|Authorities were perverse to the effect that the authorittes|have held that the payments made by the appellant to|NCR Ireland towards purchase of software amounts to|payment ofroyalty under theprovisions ofthe Act without|having regard to the provisions ofDILAA between India|and lreland? 2D.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Iribunal was|justified in upholding the orders passed by the respondent|unaer Section 201(1) and Section 201(LA) of the Income| Tax Act, 1961 by treating the appellant as an assessee-in-default? 3 |Whether on the facts and im _ thcircumstances of the case, the assessing authority erred inlevying surcharge while passing a_ rectification oraerwithout even Issuing a show cause notice?” 4This Court had an occasion to consider the saidsubstantial questions of law in the case of|Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samsung Electronics Private Limited|and connected mattersreported in|345 ITR 494 (Kar)|decided on.15.10.2011andCommissioner of Income TaxVs. Sinopsis International Old Ltd., (IT Appeal Nos. 11to 15 of 2008 dated (3.08.2010)and has answered the said|substantial questions of law in favour of the Revenue. 4.In fact, the Tribunal in this case has followed the judgement of this Court inSamsung Electronics case— As the) Tribunal has held the substantial questions of law 1n favour of| the Revenue, following the judgment of this Court, nosubstantial question of law arises for our consideration in thisappeal. However, it 1s submitted that the assessee haspreferred Special Leave petition before the Apex Courtchallenging the said orders. In the event of the assesseesucceeding in the appeals, then the Income Jax Officer shallproceed to pass consequential orders under Section 260(1A)of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Wa£th this observation, theappeal isdismissed Sd/-JUDGESd/-JUDGETL TL