M/S. WIPRO ENTERPRISES PVT LIMITED V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/54213/2017

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Wipro Enterprises Pvt Limited, represented by its manager taxation, Sri Arun Choudhury, who filed a writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner challenged an order passed by the TPO under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming it violated principles of natural justice, was without jurisdiction, and was erroneous. The court heard arguments from both sides and decided to set aside the impugned order due to the TPO's failure to consider relevant legal precedents and statutory provisions before making the decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 674826 (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 RAVIRAJ; M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: S ANNAMALAI; N LAVA
• Keywords: Erroneous order; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Transfer pricing
• Section: 92CA

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5334 WP No. 54213 of 2017 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. 54213 OF 2017 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S. WIPRO ENTERPRISES PVT LIMITED REP BY ITS MANAGER TAXATION, SRI. ARUN CHOUDHURY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SON OF SRI. ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHURY, 5TH FLOOR, NO.88, S.B. TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.ANNAMALAI & SRI. N.LAVA., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCEL-7(1)(2), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ & SRI.M DILIP., ADVOCATES) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 92CA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DTD.31.10.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 VIDE ANNEX-A. 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. 54213 of 2017 ORDER In this petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 (Transfer Pricing Officer) – TPO under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.10.2017 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 31.10.2017 for the assessment year 2014-15 herein marked as Annexure – A. b) Declare that order in Annexure – A is violation of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and an erroneous order. c) 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 - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5334 WP No. 54213 of 2017 considering or appreciating the 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. 54213 of 2017 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 contentions and in order to enable the - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5334 WP No. 54213 of 2017 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 31.10.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 (Transfer Pricing Officer) – TPO under Section 92CA 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. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, case law before the first - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5334 WP No. 54213 of 2017 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 "