Karnataka High Court
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Google Llc on 11 June, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19895-DB
ITA No. 653 of 2023
C/W ITA No. 657 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 653 OF 2023
C/W
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 657 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE.
2. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,
CIRCLE 1(1)DCIT(IT)
BANGALORE.
...APPELLANTS
(COMMON IN BOTH APPEALS)
Digitally signed
by (BY SRI. SANMATHI E.I., ADV. AND
MARIGANGAIAH SRI M DILIP, ADV.)
PREMAKUMARI
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA M/S. GOOGLE LLC
(FORMERLY GOOGLE INC.)
1600, AMPHITHEATRE PARKWAY
MOUNTAIN VIEW
CA US 94043
PAN:AADCG7673B
...RESPONDENT
(COMMON IN BOTH APPEALS)
(BY SRI. ANMOL ANAND, ADV. FOR
SRI ANIND THOMAS, ADV.)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19895-DB
ITA No. 653 of 2023
C/W ITA No. 657 of 2023
HC-KAR
ITA NO.653/2023 IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX
ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20/02/2023 PASSED IN
IT(IT)A NO. 688/BANG/2022, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-
2013 PRAYING TO 1). DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW
AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED
BY THE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND ETC.
ITA NO.657/2023 IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX
ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20/02/2023 PASSED IN
IT(IT)A NO. 167/BANG/2021, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-
2011 PRAYING TO 1). DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW
AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED
BY THE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Heard learned counsel Sri.E.I.Sanmathi for
appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri.Anmol Anand
for Sri.Anind Thomas, learned counsel for respondent.
Perused the entire appeal papers.
2. The above appeals filed under Section 260-A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against order passed
by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru 'C'
Bench, Bengaluru (for short, 'Tribunal') in
NC: 2025:KHC:19895-DB
HC-KAR
IT(IT)A.No.688/Bang/2022 for the assessment year 2012-
13 and in IT(IT)A.No.167/Bang/2021 for the assessment
year 2010-11 respectively (Annexure-A), raising the
following substantial questions of law in both the appeals:
"1. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order
is perverse in nature in concluding that once
the "make available" clause involving provision
of technical knowledge and technical services is
satisfied then the services rendered do not
qualify as FIS ignoring the terms and clauses of
the agreement which establish that India
personnel are trained by the assessee and thus
satisfying the "make available" clause?
2. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order
is perverse in not appreciating that the services
rendered are in the nature of Fees for Technical
Services?
3. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order
is perverse in nature in not appreciating that
NC: 2025:KHC:19895-DB
HC-KAR
the services rendered are in the nature of Fees
for Technical Services?
4. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order
is perverse in concluding that the services
rendered do not fulfill the criteria of 'make
available' as mandated in DTAA?
5. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order
is perverse in holding that the receipts for
services by the assessee is not FTS within the
meaning of the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of
the Act and Article 12 of India-USA DTAA?
6. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order
is perverse in not justified in deciding the issue
on the basis of decision in case of Flipkart
Internet P. Ltd., when the said decision has not
reached finality?"
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that the questions raised in the above appeals
are answered in a decision reported in the case of DEPUTY
NC: 2025:KHC:19895-DB
HC-KAR
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL
TAXATION) VS. FLIPKART INTERNET (P) LTD.
4. Learned counsel Sri.E.I.Sanmathi appearing for
the appellants/Revenue would not dispute the said fact,
but he submits that against the said issue, Revenue is
intending to file SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. In view of the fact that questions raised in the
above appeals are answered in FLIPKART INTERNET (P)
LTD., (supra), following the said decision, the present
appeals stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
NC
CT:bms
(2025) 171 TAXMANN.COM 693 (KARNATAKA)
