Karnataka High Court
ITA/5/2021 of PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 Vs M/S VERISIGN SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED on 10 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010205472020 NC: 2026:KHC:49260-DB ITA No. 5 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. PR.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7
BMTC COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE 14(5), BENGALURU.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANMATHI E I., ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. DILIP M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S VERISIGN SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
NO 52, 3RD FLOOR, 100 FT ROAD, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560034.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL, FOR
MISS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A
OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED
15/11/2019 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.2532/BANG/2017, FOR
THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE
FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER
QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE
COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE
ORDER DATED 15/11/2019 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, BENGALURU, AS SOUGHT
FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE'S CASE, IN APPEAL
PROCEEDINGS NO. IT(TP)A NO. 2532/BANG/2017 (ANNEXURE-
A) FOR A.Y.2010-2011.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellants-revenue and learned Senior counsel Sri.T.Suryanarayana for Sri.Tanmayee Rajkumar for respondent-assessee.
HC-KAR
2. The above appeal is filed questioning the order of ITAT dated 15.11.2019 in IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2017 for the assessment year 2010-2011. The above appeal was admitted on 10.06.2021 to examine the following three substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature since Tribunal has directed the Transfer Pricing Officer/Assessing authority to exclude certain comparable's on basis of functional dissimilarity ad Turnover Filter even though the Transfer Pricing officer has chosen comparable's on basis of FAR analysis and in accordance with parameters set out Rule 10B of the I.T.Rules?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude comparable's namely, M/s.Infosys Ltd, M/s.Persistent Systems Ltd, M/s.Akshay Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd even though the said comparable's satisfied qualitative and quantitative filters applied by Transfer Pricing Officer?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude Infosys Ltd as comparable on the basis of Turnover filter by even though the said comparable chose by the Transfer Pricing Officer is in accordance with parameter set out in Rule 10B(2) of I.T.Rules?"
3. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel Sri.T.Suryanarayana would submit that in view of the
HC-KAR
decision of Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.10/2011 and connected appeals dated 28.08.2026, the substantial questions of law raised in the present appeal would not remain for consideration. It is further submitted that the substantial questions are answered in favour of the respondent-assessee.
4. We have gone through the order of ITAT and appeal papers as well as the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench supra. With regard to substantial question Nos.1 and 3, the Co-ordinate Bench has held that adoption of upper turnover filter is rational and legally sustainable, as turnover, brand value, economies of scale, bargaining power and ownership of intangible materials influence comparability and profitability. In view of the above finding of the Co-Ordinate Bench, the finding of the Tribunal on the above questions cannot be said to be perverse.
HC-KAR
5. Insofar as substantial question No.2 is concerned, the same is factual finding and in fact the Tribunal has rightly excluded comparables namely M/s.Infosys Technologies Limited and M/s.Persistent Systems Limited. From the order of the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal has included the comparable of M/s.Akshay Software Technologies Limited and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The Tribunal at paragraph No.8 of its order has assigned reasons for comparables with regard to M/s.Infosys Technologies Limited and M/s.Persistent Systems Limited. With regard to inclusion of M/s. Akshay Software Technologies Limited, the Tribunal has recorded its reasons at paragraph No.9. Since the findings recorded by the Tribunal are factual findings and the same would not suffer from perversity, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the ITAT.
6. Accordingly, appeal stands rejected.
HC-KAR
7. The substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants-revenue and in favour of the respondent - assessee. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3