ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE V. SONY INDIA SOFTWARE CENTRE PVT LTD, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE

MA 50/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the ACIT against Sony India Software Centre Pvt. Ltd., concerning an earlier ITAT decision which dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objection for the assessment year 2017-18. The ACIT sought to recall the ITAT's order, claiming that certain grounds of appeal were not adjudicated. However, the High Court of Karnataka had already dismissed the Revenue's appeal, which included these grounds, leading to the dismissal of the MA by the ITAT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834088 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2025
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.50/Bang/2025 [In ITA No.1550/Bang/2024] Assessment year: 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. Vs. M/s. Sony India Software Centre Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, South Wing, Tower 2, Hibiscus Embassy Tech Village, SEZ, Outer Ring Road, Devara Beesanahalli, Bellandur S.O. Bengaluru – 560 103. PAN: AAQCS 7006K APPLICANT RESPONDENT Applicant by : Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT (DR), ITAT, Bengaluru. Respondent by : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate. Date of hearing : 30.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the ACIT, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore (the applicant/ The Ld. AO ) in the case of Sony India Software Centre Pvt. Ltd.,[ Assessee] wherein the appeal filed by the Printed from counselvise.com MA No.50/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 ld. AO in ITA No.1550/Bang/2024 & the Cross Objection filed by the assessee in CO No.43/Bang/2024 for the assessment year 2017-18 was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 13.12.2024. By that order in para 23 the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee was allowed. 2. The ld. AO has preferred this MA stating that the grounds of appeal which were modified by the AO as per email dated 30.10.2024 were not adjudicated, therefore the order of the ITAT is required to be recalled. 3. In para 6 of the MA, it is also stated that the Revenue has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka against the ITAT order wherein identical grounds over and above the unadjudicated ground challenged were in appeal. 4. At the time of hearing of the MA, the ld. AR submitted that the appeal of the Revenue against the above order of the ITAT is disposed of in ITA No.129/2025 by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka wherein the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. He also submitted the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 28.7.2025. 5. We find that the MA is filed on 30.7.2025 before which on 28.7.2025 the Hon’ble High Court has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. In view of the above facts, we find that now the MA of the ld. AO does not survive. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.50/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 6. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has also decided the grounds in favour of the assessee on merits. Thus, the MA does not survive on this aspect also. 7. In para 19 the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka also considered the order of the ITAT and upheld the order of the ITAT holding that the grounds of appeal set out by the Revenue before the Tribunal did not arise from the assessment order with respect to the issue of secondment of the employees and further in para 20 to 23 on merits also, it was held that the alleged payment on which tax is required to be deducted according to the Revenue was also not correct. Thus, it is also not the fact that ITAT has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal of the ld. AO. Thus, the order of the ITAT was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. 8. The ld. DR could not controvert the fact that the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has upheld the order of the ITAT, such order cannot be recalled and even otherwise there is no mistake in the order of ITAT. 9. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the ld. AO is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 2nd day of February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 02nd January 2026. /Desai S Murthy / Printed from counselvise.com MA No.50/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "