Rp/344/2022 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S. Mphasis Ltd
High Court
11 Aug 2023 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Rp/344/2022 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S. Mphasis Ltd
Date of order
11 Aug 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Rp/344/2022 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S. Mphasis Ltd, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Having considered the matter both on merits and delay, review petition is dismissed.
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 11 DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
REVIEW PETITION NO. 344 OF 2022
BETWEEN :
1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD Digitally signed byBANGALORE. YASHODHA NLocation: HIGHCOURT OF2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KARNATAKAOF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12(1) BANGALORE. …PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. MPHASIS LTD. ABACUS SQUARE BAGMANE TECH PARK C.V. RAMAN NAGAR BYRASANDRA BANGALORE. PAN: …RESPONDENT
(BY Ms. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
. . . .
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/01/2021 IN ITA NO. 918/2017 AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT TO BE HEARD INDEPENDENTLY AFRESH AND ETC.
- 2 -
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard. Shri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned Advocate for the respondent.
2. At the outset adverting to para 11.4 of ITAT’s order, Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned Advocate for the assessee pointed out that assessee had pleaded before the ITAT[1] that the applicability of Related Party Transaction filter could be 15% as against 25% of the sales applied by the TPO[2] and the same has not been accepted by the Tribunal. Assessee had not challenged this finding. In that view of the matter, this review petition is filed on the ground that the said question has not been answered.
3. In view of the fact that the assessee had not challenged the finding recorded by the ITAT, the said question does not arise for consideration. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
2 Transfer Pricing Officer
4. Having considered the matter both on merits and delay,
review petition is dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
SPS
Sd/- JUDGE
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.