Revenue's appeal under Section 260A challenging the Tribunal's decision treating ancillary service receipts as software services following the Engineering Analysis ruling for AY 2016-17. The High Court held no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:33008-DB ITA No. 176 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M. DILIP AND SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
M/S INFORMATICA LLC C/O INFORMATICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, NO.66/1, BAGMANE COMMEZ 02, BAGMANE TECH PRAK,
HC-KAR
C.V RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 093 PAN: AACC12354Q
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. MANASA ANANTHAN FOR SRI. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE ABOVE ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 05/07/2021 PASSED IN IT(IT)A NO. 913/BANG/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017, PRAYING I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(IT)A NO. 913/BANG/2019 DATED 05/07/2021 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017 ANNEXUE-C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU.
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 MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Heard learned counsel Sri E.I. Sanmathi along with
learned counsel Sri Dilip M. for the appellants and learned counsel Smt.Manasa Ananthan for Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar for the respondent.
HC-KAR
1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the appeal preferred by assessee by deciding the issue of sale of ancillary services by treating same as software services akin to sale of software license by following the decision of Apex Court in case of Engineering Analysis without examining the applicability of Section 12(4)(b) of the Act and without examining the nature of transactions involved in present case and ignoring contents of agreements entered into by assesssee?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, is not acknowledging the findings of the assessing authority relating to tax the receipts from ancillary services as Fee for Technical Services under Article 12(4)(a) of the DTAA and materials brought on record in support of findings of assessing authority and as such order passed by Tribunal is perverse in nature"?
point out that the subject matter relates to Assessment Year 2016-17 and whereas in respect of Assessment Year 2015-16, the order impugned herein was followed by the Tribunal in the
HC-KAR
case of respondent itself and the said order passed by the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2015-16 was the subject matter in ITA No.672/2023. The said ITA was disposed of placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 124 . Further, it is brought to our notice that the review filed against the Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Private Limited (supra) was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 11.05.2026.
opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed .
SD/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE
HKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and AnotherRelied on¶3
AIR 2021 Supreme Court 124 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner of Income-Tax International Taxation
The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax International Taxation Circle-1(2)
M/s Informatica LLC
S.G.Pandit
Rajesh Rai K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
