Ita/181/2022 Of The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Ariba Technologies India Pvt Ltd

Digitally signedby BHARATHISLocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA NC: 2024:KHC:39391-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23 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. 181 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y V.,ADVOCATE A/W SRI. DILIP M, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S ARIBA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD RMZ ICON NO. 51, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU 560052. PAN …RESPONDENT THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. TO 536/BANG/2017 DATED 11/03/2021 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 ANNEXURE-D CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard the learned counsel Sri Raviraj Y.V along with learned counsel Sri M.Dilip, for 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 11.3.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.536/Bang/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11, raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in confirming the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to exclude comparables chosen by Transfer pricing Officer ignoring the findings of the Transfer Pricing Officer? 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature in excluding comparables namely, Infosys Technologies Ltd., Kals Information Systems Ltd., Tata Elxsi Lt., Eclerx BPO Ltd., in SWD and ITES Segments without appreciating that Transfer Pricing Officer had excluded the said comparables on appellant of Rule 10B and prescribed tests?” 3. It is noticedthat the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal would not be maintainable 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 ND List No.: 3 Sl No.: 0