Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Mphasis Ltd on 1 April, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13117-DB
ITA No. 443 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.443 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, 4TH FLOOR
BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 095
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE-1(1), PRESENT ADDRESS
DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1)
4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING
80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU 560 095
...APPELLANTS
Digitally (BY SRI Y.V.RAVI RAJ, ADVOCATE)
signed by V
MANJUSHA
BAI AND:
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka M/S MPHASIS LTD.
BAGMANE WORLD TECHNOLOGY CENTRE
WTC 3, BLOCK B, 1ST FLOOR, K R PURAM
DODDENEKUNDI
BENGALURU 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MANISH KANTH, ADVOCATE FOR
MS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A
OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13117-DB
ITA No. 443 of 2022
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND
ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA
NO.17/BANG/2014 DATED 17/01/2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR
2008-2009 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE
APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S G PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Sri Y.V.Ravi Raj, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellants and Sri Manish Kanth, learned Counsel for
Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is by the revenue challenging the order dated
17.01.2022 in IT(IT)A No.17/Ban
g/2014 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru,
relating to the assessment year 2008-2009.
3. The following substantial questions of law have been raised
by the appellants in the above appeal:
"1. Whether the Tribunal was right in concluding
that the orders passed u/s.201 were barred by
limitation on the basis of "reasonable time limit"
when no time limit has been prescribed by the
Parliament in case of non-residents?
2. Whether Tribunal was correct in considering the
"reasonable time limit" on the basis of judgment of
NC: 2024:KHC:13117-DB
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide [2016] Bharti Airtel
Ltd. Vs.UOI (taxmann.com 256) and not on the
basis of legislation as it exists?
3. Whether Tribunal is justified in ignoring the
memorandum to Finance Bill 2009 clearly states
that no time limits are prescribed in case where
deductee is a non-resident?
4. Whether Tribunal's order can be said as
perverse in nature in holding that no proceedings
under section 201 of the Act were pending before
the Assessing Officer as on 01.04.2010 and by the
time the proceedings under section 201 of the Act
were initiated by issuing notice under section 201 of
the Act on 05.02.2013, it was already become
barred by limitation, therefore orders passed under
section 201(1) and 201(1A) are invalid when the
orders were passed in accordance with parameters
set out in said sections and when no time limit has
been prescribed by the Parliament in case of
non-residents?"
4. It is brought to our notice that the above substantial
questions of law are answered by the High Court of Delhi in the
case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Another vs. Union of India
and Another [2016 SCC OnLine Del 6338]. Subsequently,
this Court by following the above cited order of the High Court
of Delhi has disposed of several appeals and one such appeal is
ITA No.5/2023 disposed of on 06.02.2023.
NC: 2024:KHC:13117-DB
5. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed. The
substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the
Assessee and against the Revenue.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
hkh.
