Ita/383/2015 Of The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Sanyo India Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28[TH|]DAY OF JANUARY 2071| PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’‘’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASW AILT.A. NO.383 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1.|THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-56000 1. 2.|DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(3), BANGALORE. (BY MR. E.I. SANMATHI , ADV.,). .... APPELLANTS AND" 1.|M/S. SANYO INDIA PVT. LTD.,. NO.45, 2ND FLOOR| JUBLEE BUILDING MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALOREPAN No.AAJICS 0730M.PAN No.AAJICS 0730M. 2.|OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOROF M/S. SANYO BPL PVT. LTD.,CORPORATE BHAWANNO.26-27, 12TH FLOOR.M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-5S60001(AMENDED AS PER COURT —ORDER DATED 15.12.2020). OF M/S. SANYO BPL PVT. LTD.,CORPORATE BHAWANNO.26-27, 12TH FLOOR.M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-5S60001(AMENDED AS PER COURT —ORDER DATED 15.12.2020). .. RESPONDENTS. (BY MR. NAGESHWARA RAO, ADV., FOR R11V/O DTD:15.12.2020 MR. ANUPAM AGARWAL, ADV., FOR R2) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX|ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27.03.2015 PASSEDIN IT(TP)A NO.224/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR.2009-10, PRAYING TO: | (i) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR-SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BYTHE HON BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. (ii) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 27.03.2015)PASSED BY THE ITAT, B BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR,IN|THE|RESPONDENT-ASSESSEES |CASE,|IN|APPEAL|PROCEEDINGS IN IT(TP)A NO.224/BANG/2014 FOR A.Y.2009-10. THIS ILT.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS DAY, | ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has|been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appealpertains to the Assessment Year 2009-10. The appeal wasadmitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated| 30.10.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether, on the _ facts and in_ tcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was|justified in directing the TPO to adopt RP|methodand|rejectingtheTNMmethodadopted by the TPO, witnout ascertaining its|nexus with the business activity of the|taxpayer?| 2D.Whetner, Of)thefactsandIn|tnecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was|justified in directing the TPO to adopt RP|metnod ignoring tne fact that the marketing|expenses/recovery of expenses cannot be|bench-mearked under the RP metnod and thesame are to be bencn-marked only if TNM|metnod is adopted as the Most Appropriate|Method?’| 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Nas filed amemo along with a copy of the order dated 19.08.2016passed in OLR No.8/2016 by which a Bench of this Court has|directed winding up of tne assessee. It is also pointed out|from paragraph 5 of the order that no objection certificatehas been obtained from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle VI, Bengaluru, vide communication dated06.03.2015 stating that tnere are no outstanding demand /dues against the company. It is therefore, submitted that|the questions of law involved in this appeal have beenrendered academic. -��$��,�����������������������!�������*����������������������������������!����������,�,�������������������������������������� ������������ ����������� �+�