THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. M/S INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT.LTD.

ITA/385/2017

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Department against M/s Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. concerning the re-computation of deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The appeal questioned the legality of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision, which had set aside the re-computation of deduction by following a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Tata Elxsi. Additionally, the appeal challenged the Tribunal's direction to exclude certain comparables based on functional dissimilarity and to consider the claim of market risk adjustment despite the absence of a reliable method to convert qualitative differences into quantitative differences. However, the court did not proceed with the substantive issues due to the non-maintainability of the appeal based on the monetary threshold set by the CBDT Circular.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 744879 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v/s. Tata Elxsi
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Keywords: Deduction; Functional Dissimilarity; Income tax appeal; Transfer pricing; Market Risk Adjustment
• Section: 10A; 260-A

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6293-DB ITA No. 385 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 385 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A), 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(4), PRESENT ADDRESS, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. KALYANI PLATINA, 3RD FLOOR, BLOCK-I, #6 & 24, EPIP ZONE PHASE I, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560066. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:22/09/2016 Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6293-DB ITA No. 385 of 2017 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.1068/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008, ANNEXURE-D PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN IT(TP)A NO.1068/BANG/2011 DATED:22/09/2016, ANNEXURE-D AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE DRP CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 22nd September, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-A, Bengaluru in IT(TP)A No.1068/Bang/2011 for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. 2. The Revenue has framed the following substantial questions of law in the appeal memo: \"1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the re-computation of deduction under Section 10A of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v/s. Tata Elxsi which has not reached finality? - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6293-DB ITA No. 385 of 2017 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing AO/TPO to exclude certain comparable based on functional dissimilarity even when the TPO has chosen the said comparable by applying qualitative and quantitative filers when culling out comparable companies? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to consider the claim of market risk adjustment despite the fact that there is no reliable method to convert the qualitative difference into qualitative difference and to make appropriate adjustment on account of risk level?” 3. Since the amount involved in the case falls below the minimum ceiling limit prescribed in the CBDT Circular No.9/2024 dated 17th September, 2024, the Appeal is not maintainable and accordingly it is disposed off reserving liberty to recall the order in the event the matter falls in one of the exceptions enumerated in the Circular or otherwise. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 "