Ita/289/2018 Of Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. M/S Outsource Partners

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE JZOTH DAY OF MARCH 2707PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’/BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL1T.A. NO.2Z89 OF JZO1 BETWEEN: 1.|PR, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5. BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE. 2.|THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -5(1)(2), BANGALORE. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. SANMATHI E.I. ADV.,). AND" M/S. OUTSOURCE PARTNERS |INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.|TOWER-2D, PHASE-IVIKAS TELECOM LIMITED)VRINDAVAN TECH VILLAGE|OUTER RING ROADDEVARABEESANAHALLIBANGALORE-56008/ PAN: AAACOS5 7 3 (BY MR. ANKUR PAI, ADV., FOR. MR. K.R. VASUDEVAN, ADV.,). ~. RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX|ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31.10.2017 PASSEDIN ITA NO.526/BANG/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR_SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BYTHE HON BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE!APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.10.2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME.TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, BENGALURU, AS SOUGHTFOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEES CASE, IN APPEALPROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.526/BANG/2016 FOR A.Y.2011-12 &GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTERESTOF JUSTICE. THIS I.7T.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS’ DAY, |ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Ankur Pai, learned counsel for the assessee. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (nereinafter referred to as the Act, for snort) nas|been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appealpertains to the Assessment Year 2011-12. Tne appeal wasadmitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated|01.04.2019 on tne following substantial questions of law: a7WhetherOf)thefactsandInthecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal Isrigntinlaw|Insettingaside|certaincomparables chosen by the transfer pricing|officer on the basis of functional dissimilarity|by following its earlier order? 2. WhetnerOP)thefactsand|In|thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal IsrigntInlaw|in airecting—theassessingautnority and the Transfer Pricing Officer to reconsider the risk adjustment by following Itsearlier decision in the case of § I[ntellinTecnnologies[IndiaPrivateLimited.,and|Bearing Point Business Consulting’ PrivateLimited.,andBearingPoint BUSINESSConsulting Private Limited. ?" 2. When the matter was taken up today, learnedcounsel for the revenue submits that he may be permitted toraise the aforesaid substantial questions of law in ITANo.288/2018.. With the aforesaid liberty, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-—JUDGE RV