8553 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/c-a-no-007689-007690-2022/
No 20993/2022 @ Diary No 1571/2019)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8465 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 29180/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8608 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 3941/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8622 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 6108/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8611 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No.5364/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8627
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 7374/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8555 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 21000/2022 @ Diary No 5862/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8663 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 8145/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8559 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 21015/2022 @ Diary No 7805/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8584 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 21071/2022 @ Diary No 8914/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8586 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 21074/2022 @ Diary No 8921/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8561 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 21018/2022 @ Diary No 8896/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8585 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 21072/2022 @ Diary No 8940/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8592 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 21081/2022 @ Diary No 9997/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8684 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 11677/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8685 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 12344/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8603 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 21096/2022 @ Diary No 15505/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8605 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 21102/2022 @ Diary No 15762/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9030
OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 22610/2022 @ Diary No 22955/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9034 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 22614/2022 @ Diary No 23141/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9022 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 22602/2022 @ Diary No 21399/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9031 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 22611/2022 @ Diary No 23113/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9393 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 24227/2022 @ Diary No 26887/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9394 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 24228/2022 @ Diary No 27764/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8606 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 21103/2022 @ Diary No 37058/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8513 OF 2022 (Arising from SLP(Civil) No 20880/2022 @ Diary No 37556/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. The present batch of Civil Appeals, mostly by the Revenue and few of the assessees arises out of judgments and orders passed by the various High Courts, more particularly the High Court of Karnataka, dismissing the appeals challenging the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘Tribunal’) on ‘Transfer Pricing’ issues on the ground that the issues decided by the Tribunal are questions of fact and as perversity is neither pleaded nor argued nor demonstrated by placing material to that effect, no substantial question of law arises for consideration under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’). 1 Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG has submitted that there cannot be any absolute proposition of law that against the decision of the Tribunal determining the arm’s length price, there shall not be any interference by the High Court in an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act. 3 It is submitted that if the arm’s length price is determined by the Tribunal de hors the guidelines stipulated under the Act and the Rules, more particularly Rules 10A to 10E of the Rules, the determination can be said to be perverse which is always subject to the scrutiny by the High Court in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act. 1 It is submitted on behalf of the assessees that Section 260A of the IT Act provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order of the Tribunal only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. 4 It is submitted that a finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on (i) no evidence; and/or (ii) while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration; or (iii) legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence; or (iv) when the evidence has been misread. 5
It is further submitted that perversity, if any, not only should be specifically alleged in the appeal before the High Court but also, as held by the High Court in the case of Softbrands India (P) Ltd.
7 It is submitted that in all the appeals filed by the Revenue before the High Court, the primary issues raised pertained to inclusion and exclusion of a few comparables and selection of filters, which are essentially questions of fact and there is a consensus ad idem to this extent between the parties.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/analysis-of-bail-granting-criteria-in-criminal-cases/
Therefore, the High Court after noting the questions raised, findings rendered by the Tribunal and noting that perversity is neither pleaded/argued nor demonstrated by placing any material, dismissed the appeals, by relying on principles laid down in Softbrands India (P) Ltd. In the specific facts of batch of cases wherein department has approached this Court, the exercise of application of detailed guidelines set out in the IT Act and the Rules was indeed carried out and ironed out by Tribunal with assistance of tax payers representatives and department officers by looking a publicly available information mostly in the form of audited financials etc., of companies as prescribed in the IT Act and the Rules. In background facts or present batch of department’s appeals, acceptance of department’s contention about lack of application of mind by the High Court would cast an unjust burden on the High Court to undertake a suo moto exploration of facts not placed before it, make out a case for the department and decide the same without any assistance from the appellant before the High Court. It is submitted that considered view may be taken after taking into account pleadings before the High Court, pleadings in the appeals before this Court in Assessees and department appeals and not based on sweeping generalization. 13
Case Title: SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 6 (1) (1) BANGALORE (2023 INSC 394)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008463-008463 / 2022
