M/S.WIPRO ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED V. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX

WP/51221/2019

AI Insights

In this writ petition, M/s Wipro Enterprises Private Limited, represented by its manager taxation, challenged an order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 91CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.10.2019, for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner sought to quash the TPO's order, arguing that it was passed without considering relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents. The respondents contended that the petitioner had not produced the cited judgments during the proceedings and thus were not entitled to relief. The court found that the TPO had indeed not considered the relevant judgments and statutory provisions before passing the order, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the TPO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725975 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs M/s. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax vs Tara Jewels Exports Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax vs Keihin Panalfa Ltd., CIT vs Petro Araldite Pvt Ltd., CIT vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd., CIT vs ALSTOM Projects India Ltd., CIT vs Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd., CIT-I vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd., CIT vs Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V; M
• Assessee Lawyers: ANNAMALAI; M LAVA
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Certiorari; Certiorari; Income Tax; Transfer pricing; Writ petition
• Section: 92CA; 91CA

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5334 WP No. 51221 of 2019 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. 51221 OF 2019 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S WIPRO ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED REP BY ITS MANAGER TAXATION SRI. S. B. NAVANEETH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SON OF SRI. BASU RANGASWAMY, 5TH FLOOR, NO. 88, S.B. TOWERS, M.G, ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI & SRI.M LAVA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER-2(2), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CICRLE-7(1)(2), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.V RAVIRAJ & SRI.M.DIPIL, ADVOCATES;) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 U/S 91CA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 31.10.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNX-A & ECT., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5334 WP No. 51221 of 2019 ORDER In this petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 (Transfer Pricing Officer) – TPO under Section 91CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.10.2019 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 31.10.2019 for the assessment year 2016- 17 herein marked as Annexure – A. b) 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 considering or appreciating the - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5334 WP No. 51221 of 2019 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 - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5334 WP No. 51221 of 2019 High Courts which have been confirmed by the Apex Court would vitiate 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 - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5334 WP No. 51221 of 2019 contentions and in order to enable the first respondent – TPO to pass fresh orders after consideration of 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 31.10.2019 passed by the respondent No.1 (Transfer Pricing Officer) – TPO under Section 91CA 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. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5334 WP No. 51221 of 2019 (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, case law before the first 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 List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0 "