Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation), Bengaluru & Anr. v. M/s. KDDI Corporation, Japan

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Revenue appealed against the ITAT C Bench order of 15 April 2024 in IT(IT)A 102/Bang/2024 for AY 2015-16. The common Tribunal order also covered AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Source: PDF p.2, paras 2–3

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

ITA 233/2024 for AY 2014-15 had been dismissed on 19 August 2025 on identical questions, covered by the Karnataka Vodafone Idea decision of 14 July 2023 and the Supreme Court decision cited as(2025)176 taxmann. com 626.

Source: PDF pp.2–3, para 3

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

Following ITA 233/2024, the Court dismissed ITA 234/2024.

Source: PDF p.3, paras 4–5

4. OUTCOME

Assessee successful for AY 2015-16; the common Tribunal order was not disturbed as challenged here.

Source: PDF p.3

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Follow the chain of authority accurately

The immediate comparator is KDDI’s AY 2014-15 appeal, which in turn applied the two Vodafone Idea authorities. This short judgment confirms the same result for identical questions. It does not reproduce the statutory or treaty reasoning, so precise substantive reliance requires the referenced decisions.

Source: PDF pp.2–3

Do not substitute an assumed transaction

The order gives no contract, payment amount, equipment rights or detailed services description. Those facts should not be supplied simply because Vodafone Idea is cited. The reliable conclusion is that Revenue identified identical questions under the same Tribunal order and the earlier dismissal governed.

Source: PDF pp.2–3

A common Tribunal order still produces distinct appeals

The Tribunal covered three years, but ITA 234/2024 concerns only AY 2015-16. The 19 August decision for AY 2014-15 is a related authority, not this judgment’s date or docket. Preserving that distinction prevents the loss of a separately adjudicated assessment-year appeal.

Source: PDF p.2, paras2–3