The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi v. Hosmani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI I.T.A.No.157/2021 BETWEEN: 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU. OF INCOME TAX-7 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU … APPELLANTS OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU … APPELLANTS [BY SRI. SANMATHI E.I., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)] AND: M/s. TECHNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD., 394-PHASE-IV UDYOG VIHAR, GURGAON-122 001. PAN No.AAACL 7345 L … RESPONDENT [BY SRI. K.R.VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCE)] THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 03.07.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.1447/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the revenue assailing the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru in appeal ITA No.1447/BANG/2017 relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11, raising the following substantial questions of law: (1)“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of commission payment by holding that the provisions of section 195 are not applicable in the facts of present case ignoring that assessee had failed to establish nature of payments and even during the appellate proceedings, the assessee had not submitted complete details about the nature of services rendered by the payees for which commission has been paid and whether this would fall beyond the scope for fee for technical services?” case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of commission payment by holding that the provisions of section 195 are not applicable in the facts of present case ignoring that assessee had failed to establish nature of payments and even during the appellate proceedings, the assessee had not submitted complete details about the nature of services rendered by the payees for which commission has been paid and whether this would fall beyond the scope for fee for technical services?” (2)“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the nature of commission payments are not in dispute when the assessing authority has clearly disputed the same and made disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act since all the conditions set out in said provision was fulfilled?”. 2. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly submits that the substantial questions of law raised herein, do not relate to the ITA Nos.1447 and 1448/BANG/2017 decided by the tribunal, on the other hand, the same relates to ITA Nos.1519 and 1520/BANG/2017, against which the revenue has preferred ITA No.62/2021 and ITA FR No.216/2021. accordingly, submits that the appeal may be disposed of, as no substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal. 3. The said submission is placed on record. 4. In view of the aforesaid, appeal stands disposed of, as no substantial questions of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 5. It is needless to observe that the substantial questions of law raised herein, being the subject matter of the pending appeal ITA No.62/2021 and ITA F.R. No.216/2021, liberty is reserved to the revenue to urge the grounds relating to these substantial questions of law in the aforesaid pending appeals. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE BVK