Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation), Bengaluru & Anr. v. M/s. Synamedia Limited

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Revenue challenged the ITAT order of 12 November 2021 in IT(IT)A 363/Bang/2017 for AY 2006-07. Synamedia relied on the dismissal of ITA 698/2023 on 12 August 2025.

Source: PDF pp.2–3

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

Revenue argued that Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence did not apply. After considering the submissions and appeal questions, the Court found the questions identical to ITA 698/2023 and no demonstrated distinction in fact or law.

Source: PDF p.3, paras 3–5

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The appeal was dismissed because no substantial question of law arose.

Source: PDF p.4, para 6

4. OUTCOME

Assessee successful; the AY 2006-07 Tribunal result remained undisturbed.

Source: PDF pp.2–4

5. Expert Comments

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

A proposed distinction needs factual substance

Revenue’s assertion that Engineering Analysis was inapplicable did not identify a distinction from the earlier Synamedia appeal. In using this judgment, compare the actual questions and agreements with the earlier case. A different label for the payment alone would not reproduce the factual exercise recorded here.

Source: PDF p.3, paras4–5

Read the adopted judgment for the detailed rule

This order identifies Engineering Analysis and the earlier appeal but does not reproduce contract terms, payment amounts or a detailed royalty analysis. Its immediate reasoning is consistency on identical questions. A broader conclusion about every software or service payment would go beyond these four pages.

Source: PDF pp.3–4

The year and docket remain separate

ITA 107/2024 concerns AY 2006-07 and Tribunal appeal 363/Bang/2017. Following ITA 698/2023 does not merge the two appeals or turn the earlier assessment year into the present one. Preserve each order when tracing the litigation and the effect of any later proceeding.

Source: PDF pp.2–3