Ita/68/2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kennametal Inc,Usa
High Court
02 Apr 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Ita/68/2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kennametal Inc,Usa
Date of order
02 Apr 2025
Assessment year(s)
2014-2015
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/68/2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kennametal Inc,Usa, 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
Digitally signedby SHAKAMBARILocation: HighCourt ofKarnataka
NC: 2025:KHC:13737-DBITA No. 68 of 2024
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. 68 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 7 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2), 4 FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
KENNAMETAL INC., USA C/O KENNAMETAL INDIA LTD., 8/9 sMILE, TUMKUR ROAD, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU-560073 PAN NO
…RESPONDENT
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED
- 2 -
13.07.2022 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1658/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. 2 ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 1658/BANG/2017 DATED 13.07.2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 ANNEXURE A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE DRP CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(2), 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 INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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.
2. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short,
‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA No.1658/Bang/2017 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 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13737-DB
ITA No. 68 of 2024
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.: 8
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.