Karnataka High Court
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 6 February, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5334
WP No. 55462 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 55462 OF 2018 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
M/S WIPRO ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED
REP BY ITS MANAGER TAXATION
SRI ARUN CHOUDHURY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
SON OF SRI ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHURY
5TH FLOOR, NO.88 S B TOWERS
M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M LAVA, ANNAMALAI S & SRI.M.LAVA., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
TRANSFER PRICING 2(2)(1)
BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 095
Digitally
signed by
VANDANA S 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Location: SPECIAL RANGE -7, BMTC BUILDING
HIGH COURT 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA
OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 095
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y.V.RAVIRAJ & SRI.M DILIP., ADVOCATES)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE R-1 UNDER SEC. 92 CA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,
1961 DATED 31.10.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 VIDE
ANNEX-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5334
WP No. 55462 of 2018
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order
passed by the respondent No.1 (Transfer Pricing Officer) - TPO
under Section 92 CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.10.2018
and for other reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ of Certiorari and direction in the nature
of a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the
Respondent No.1 under section 92 CA of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 dated 31.10.2018 for the assessment year
2015-16 herein marked as Annexure - A.
b) Declare that order in Annexure - A is barred by
limitation, in violation of principles of natural justice,
without jurisdiction and an erroneous order.
c) And pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and
equity."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in
the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1
- TPO committed an error in passing the impugned order without
NC: 2024:KHC:5334
considering or appreciating the relevant statutory provisions as well
as the judgment of various High Courts as stated below:
1. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs M/s. Thyssen Krupp
Industries India Pvt. Ltd., 381 IR 413
2. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Tara Jewels Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Order dated 05.10.2025 in ITA No.1814/2013 (HC-Bombay)
3. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Keihin Panalfa Ltd. 381 ITR
407 (Delhi)
4. CIT vs Petro Araldite Pvt Ltd., (Bombay) Order dated
24.11.2015.
5. CIT vs Hindustan Uniliever Ltd., 394 ITR 73 (Bombay)
6. CIT vs ALSTOM Projects India Ltd., 394 ITR 141 (Bombay)
7. CIT vs Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 414 ITR 704
(Bombay)
8. CIT-I vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd., SLP(C) No.(s) 22381/2017
Order dated 29.10.2018 (SC)
9. CIT vs Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd., SLP (civil) Diary
No.2234/2018 Order dated 05.02.2018 (SC).
4. It is submitted that non consideration of the relevant
statutory provisions as well as the law laid down by the various High
Courts which have been confirmed by the Apex Court would vitiate
NC: 2024:KHC:5334
the impugned order which deserves to be set aside and the matter
be remitted back to the respondent No.1 - TPO for reconsideration
afresh in accordance with law.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents would submit
that there is no merit in the petition and same is liable to be
dismissed. It is submitted that if sufficient opportunities were
granted to the petitioner who did not produce the aforesaid
judgments and as such they are not entitled to any indulgence in
the present petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the aforesaid judgments relied upon the petitioner which
were rendered prior to the impugned order have not been
considered by the respondent No.1 - TPO before passing the
impugned order which also does not take into account the relevant
statutory provisions before passing the impugned order. Under
these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the
merit/demerits of the rival contentions and in order to enable the
first respondent - TPO to pass fresh orders after consideration of
NC: 2024:KHC:5334
the relevant statutory provisions and the judgments of various High
Courts referred to supra, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside
the impugned order and remit the matter back to the first
respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petitioner is hereby allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the
respondent No.1 (Transfer Pricing Officer) - TPO under Section
92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is hereby set aside.
(iii) Matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 - TPO
for reconsideration afresh bearing in mind the aforesaid judgments
and the relevant statutory provisions, in this regard.
(iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are
kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit
additional pleadings, documents, case law before the first
NC: 2024:KHC:5334
respondent who shall consider the same and proceed further, in
accordance with law.
(vi) It is made clear that the respondent shall provide
sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear him
and proceed further in the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DHA
