Karnataka High Court
Pr Commissioner Of vs M/S Sanyo Bpl P Ltd on 28 January, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
I.T.A. NO.923 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6
BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE-12(3), BANGALORE.
.... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. E.I. SANMATHI , ADV.,)
AND:
1. M/S. SANYO BPL P. LTD.,
JUBLEE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR
NO.45, MUSEUM ROAD
BANGALORE-560025
PAN No.AAJCSO 332B.
2. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
OF M/S. SANYO BPL PVT. LTD.,
CORPORATE BHAWAN
NO.26-27, 12TH FLOOR
M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001
(AMENDED AS PER COURT
ORDER DATED 2.1.2020).
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. K.P. KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. K.S. MAHADEVAN, ADV., FOR R2)
---
2
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX
ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.06.2017 PASSED
IN IT(TP)A NO.1625/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR
2007-08, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PRAYING TO:
(i) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR
SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY
THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT.
(ii) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 09.06.2017
PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL
PROCEEDINGS NO IT(TP)A NO.1625/BANG/2014 FOR A.Y.2007-
08, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO
GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has
been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal
pertains to the Assessment Year 2007-08. The appeal was
admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated
05.11.2018 on the following substantial questions of law:
"1. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the
Tribunal is right in setting aside the addition of
Rs.14.06 lakhs made by assessing authority
as short term capital gain by adopting
guidance value of the property by erroneously
holding that the assessing authority ought to
have referred the matter to DVO for
determination guidance value as per Section
50C of the Act even when same is not
mandatory?
2. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the
Tribunal is right in directing the Transfer
Pricing Officer to carry out the working capital
adjustment on the basis of actual workings on
the financials of the final companies remained
as comparable without appreciating that
Transfer Pricing Officer had rightly passed
order under Section 92CA whereby no
adjustment of working capital was granted
since the assessee had failed to give proper
justification and detailed computation of
adjustment of fixed expense and as such the
Tribunal ought to have upheld the approach of
the TPO in not granting the working capital
adjustment?".
2. When the matter was taken up today, learned Senior
counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of the order
dated 20.04.2017 passed in OLR No.15/2016 by which a
Bench of this Court has directed winding up of the assessee.
It is also pointed out from paragraph 4 of the order that no
objection certificate has been obtained from the Deputy
Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle VI, Bengaluru, vide
communication dated 28.06.2016 stating that there are no
arrears of tax outstanding in the case of the company in
member's voluntary winding up. It is therefore submitted
that the questions of law involved in this appeal have been
rendered academic.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission, the appeal is
disposed of with liberty to revive the same if the occasion so
arises.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
