Ita/315/2023 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- Tax v. M/S Conduent Business Services India Llp
High Court
02 Apr 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Ita/315/2023 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- Tax v. M/S Conduent Business Services India Llp
Date of order
02 Apr 2025
Assessment year(s)
2014-2015
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/315/2023 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- Tax v. M/S Conduent Business Services India Llp, the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 315 OF 2023
BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(2)(1), PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(1) (1), 2 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N., ADVOCATE) AND:M/S. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA LLP Digitally signed(FORMERLY KNOWN AS XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES by SHAKAMBARIINDIA PVT LTD ) UNIT-A, 5 FLOOR, Location: HighCourt ofAVIATOR BUILDING, WHITEFIELD ROAD, KarnatakaASCENDAS ITPB SEZ INTERNATIONAL TECH PARK, BENGALURU-560066. ….RESPONDENT (BY SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE)
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: 1. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE.
- 2 -
2. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A NO.3346/BANG/2018 DATED 13.09.2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 ANNEXURE-D AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE DRP CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU. 3. TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
Heard the learned counsel Shri.Sushal Tiwari.N., for the Appellants/Revenue and Ms.Jinita Chatterjee, learned counsel for the Respondent/Assessee.
2. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 questioning the correctness
and legality of order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the
Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A No.3346/Bang/2018 for the Assessment Year 2014-2015.
3. 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.
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.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Appeal is disposed off with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the Revenue, without admitting the Appeal.
- 4 -
However, the question of law is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.
Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE
Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE
DH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.