DIT Vs Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd. (Karnataka High Court)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

I.T.A. NO.383 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE.

2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
CIRCLE-1(1), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE.... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,)

AND:

M/S. JEANS KNIT PVT. LTD.,
NO.21, E-1, II PHASE
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BANGALORE-560058.... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29.06.2012 PASSED IN ITA NOs.19 & 23/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

(I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN.

(I) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NOS.19 & 23/BANG/2010 DATED 29-06- 2012 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 01.03.2013 on the following substantial question of law:

(i) Whether the tribunal was correct in holding that the services rendered by the on-resident company is not akin to technical skill and expertise as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and TDS provisions are not applicable?

(ii) Whether the tribunal was correct in holding that the inspection and ensure ofquality of fabric, scheduled shipment ofraw material and other related services rendered by the non-resident company would not fall within the services contemplated under Section 9(i)(vii) of the Act?

(iii) Whether the tribunal was correct in setting aside the order passed under Section 201(1A) of the Act?

To know more in details find the attachment file