Karnataka High Court
Pr., Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Charles River Laboratories Inc on 9 September, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35286-DB
ITA No. 656 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 656 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX (OSD),
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,
CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. E I SANMATHI, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL)
Digitally signed AND:
by
MARIGANGAIAH
PREMAKUMARI M/S. CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INC.,
Location: HIGH 251, BALLARDVALE STREET,
COURT OF WILMINGTON,
KARNATAKA MASSACHUSETTS 01887,
UNITED STATES,
PAN: AAGCC2596Q.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADV.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT
1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 01/06/2023 PASSED IN
IT(IT)A NO.89/BANG/2023, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015,
PRAYING TO (1) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND /
OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35286-DB
ITA No. 656 of 2023
HC-KAR
THE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND (2) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE
ORDER DATED 01.06.2023 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, 'A' BENCH, BENGALURU, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE
RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE'S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.
IT(IT) A NO.89/BANG/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR
2014-2015 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT,
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.'
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order
dated 01.06.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Bengaluru in appeal proceedings in
IT(IT)A.Nos.89/Bang/2023 for the assessment year 2014-
15, raising the following substantial questions of law:
"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
NC: 2025:KHC:35286-DB
HC-KAR
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
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 nature 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
NC: 2025:KHC:35286-DB
HC-KAR
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 defendant
Beers Minerals P. Ltd., when the said decision
has not reached finality?"
2. The Tax effect shown in the appeal
memorandum is Rs.1,34,83,335/-.
3. Heard learned counsel Sri.E.I.Sanmathi for
appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Smt.Tanmayee
Rajkumar, for the respondent. Perused the entire appeal
papers.
4. Learned senior counsel Smt.Tanmayee
Rajkumar for respondent referring to Circular No.9/2024
dated 17.09.2024 submits that the appeal would not be
maintainable in view of increasing the monetary limit to
NC: 2025:KHC:35286-DB
HC-KAR
Rs.2,00,00,000/- to file appeal. It is also submitted that
the said Circular would apply to the pending appeals
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts and the
Tribunals.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel
Sri.Sanmathi.E.I., for appellants/Revenue would submit
that this case would fall under exception clause 3.1(l) and
(ii) of Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, since it is a
case arising out of the DTAA.
6. On perusal of the exception clause, it is seen
that the appeals of International taxation charges where
the dispute relates to the applicability of the provisions of
a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement or otherwise is
made exception.
7. But, in the instant appeal, applicability of the
provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement is not
in question. Therefore, the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant/Revenue is unsustainable.
NC: 2025:KHC:35286-DB
HC-KAR
8. In view of the fact that the tax effect is less
than Rs.2,00,00,000/-, the appeal stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
NC
CT:bms
