Perused The Review Petition Papers v. Nc: 2024:Khc:35617-Dbrp

Digitallysigned byNIRMALADEVILocation:HIGH COURTOFKARNATAKA NC: 2024:KHC:35617-DBRP No. 252 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REVIEW PETITION NO.252 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-6 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. PRESENT ADDRESS THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, 5 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 6 BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), 2 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 6 BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, NC: 2024:KHC:35617-DB RP No. 252 of 2023 BANGALORE-560 095. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ.Y.V., ADV. A/W SRI. DILIP.M, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NO.139 OF 25, DOMLUR RING ROAD, DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560 071. PAN: AAECS 6424R. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.SURYANARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THE REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF THE CPC, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO REVIEW/RECALL THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ITA NO.264/2017 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard learned counsel Sri. Raviraj.Y.V. along with Sri. Dilip.M., learned counsel for the petitioners-Revenue and learned Senior Counsel Sri. T.Suryanarayana for learned counsel Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar for the respondent. 2. Perused the review petition papers. 3. Learned counsel Sri. Raviraj.Y.V. would submit that the Revenue has filed this petition praying to review the order dated 05.11.2018 in ITA.No.264/2017, wherein this Court disposed of the appeal placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE VS. MOTOROLA INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD., (2014) 46 TAXMANN.COM 167/225 TAXMAN 11 (KAR.) (MAG.). The said order of this Court was taken up to the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C)No.21055/2019. The Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 20.3.2023 disposed of the SLP with an observation that the appropriate course for the petitioners is to file appropriate application before the High Court to seek restoration of the appeal and reconsideration of the same. - 4 - Learned counsel Sri. Raviraj.Y.V., would submit that in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this review petition. 4. At the threshold, learned Senior Counsel Sri. T.Suryanarayana for the respondent would submit that the only contention raised by the petitioners-Revenue is that the decision on which ITA.No.264/2017 was disposed of i.e., placing reliance on Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. case (supra) had not attained finality. 5. It is brought to our notice that the decision in Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. case(supra)is affirmed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax v. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd., (2017) 87 taxmann.com 182 (Karnataka) (FB), wherein at Paragraph No.38 it has held as follows: "38. We therefore affirm and agree with the view expressed by the first Division Bench of this Court in the case of Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. (supra) and we do not agree with the view taken by the subsequent Division Bench on 10/04/2014 in the present case." 6. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners-Revenue has not made out any - 5 - 5. It is brought to our notice that the decision in Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. case(supra)is affirmed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax v. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd., (2017) 87 taxmann.com 182 (Karnataka) (FB), wherein at Paragraph No.38 it has held as follows: "38. We therefore affirm and agree with the view expressed by the first Division Bench of this Court in the case of Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. (supra) and we do not agree with the view taken by the subsequent Division Bench on 10/04/2014 in the present case." 6. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners-Revenue has not made out any - 5 - ground to review the order dated 05.11.2018 in ITA.No.264/2017. The only ground urged as stated above is not available in view of the Full Bench decision affirming Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. case(supra). Hence, both Review Petition as well as I.A.No.1/2023 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 922 days are dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE