Questions Of Law v. The Commissioner Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF MARCH 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI I. T. A. NO.308 OF 2018 BETWEEN: TECHNICOLOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, [FORMERLY PAPRIKAS INTERACTIVE SERVICES P. LTD] LEVEL 9, NAVIGATOR BUILDING ITPL WHITEFILED ROAD BANGALORE - 560 066 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR-FINANCE MS. MILI CHOWDHARY ...APPELLANT (BY SURYANARAYANA T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(3) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 095. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1 BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY MR. DILIP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:06.12.2017 PASSED IN IT(IT)A No.1812 AND 1813/BANG/2016 (ANNEXURE-C); FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 VIDE ANNEXURE - 'C' PRAYING TO (A) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED ABOVE; (B) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED:06.12.2017 IN IT(IT)A Nos. 1812 AND 1813/BANG/2016 (ANNEXURE-C); AND (C) PASS SUCH OTHER OR SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr. T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the assessee. Mr. Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 06.12.2017, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2010-2011. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Tribunal was right in placing reliance on the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., in ITA No.2808/2005 dated 15.10.2011[2012] 345 ITR 494 (Kar), though the said judgment of this Hon'ble Court had not been accepted and the Civil Appeal in C.A.No.10109/2013 is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances and on the grounds urged the Tribunal was right or justified in confirming the order passed by the 1[st] respondent by holding that the payments made by the appellant was 'royalty' as defined under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and under the applicable DTAAs, giving rise to an income chargeable to tax in India and necessitating deduction of tax under Section 195 of the Act?" 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue involved in this appeal has been put to rest in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.8733-8734/2018 between ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANOTHER, vide order dated 02.03.2021 and the issue involved in this appeal has been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue was unable to dispute the aforesaid submission. 5. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8733-8734/2018 vide order dated 02.03.2021, the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the result, the order dated 17.04.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is hereby quashed. In the result, the appeal is allowed. SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE