1. Dispute over classification of payments as royalty under income tax law following the overruling of a precedent relied upon by the High Court. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1979
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjiv Khanna, J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
Infosys Technologies Ltd. - Appellants
Vs.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9834-9837 OF 2013 With C.A. No. 9838-9840 OF 2013
Decided On : 01-09-2022
Important Points
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court for re-examination because the High Court's judgment relied on a precedent that was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Another.
Subject
Tax Law - Income Tax
Headnote
(A) Income Tax Act - Relevant judgments cited include Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2022) 3 SCC 321] and Commissioner of Income Tax & Another v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [(2012) 345 ITR 494] - The Court addresses the need for lower courts to analyze relevant facts properly. (Para 1-3)
(B) Appellate review - The Appellate Court is required to identify the factual determinations made by lower authorities and not disregard them. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The High Court's reliance on a previously overruled judgment led to an improper assessment of facts regarding income tax issues.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case for re-examination of issues.
Issues: The primary issue was the proper examination of facts as adjudicated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the backdrop of legislative changes.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that prior judgments must be correctly interpreted in light of changed laws and must be supported by factual analysis by lower courts.
Result: Appeals disposed of with an order of remand.
(B) Appellate review - The Appellate Court is required to identify the factual determinations made by lower authorities and not disregard them. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The High Court's reliance on a previously overruled judgment led to an improper assessment of facts regarding income tax issues.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case for re-examination of issues.
Issues: The primary issue was the proper examination of facts as adjudicated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the backdrop of legislative changes.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that prior judgments must be correctly interpreted in light of changed laws and must be supported by factual analysis by lower courts.
Result: Appeals disposed of with an order of remand.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Adit Khorana, Adv. Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Archana Sahadeva, AOR Mr. Tejveer Bhatia, Adv. Mr. R. Swrup, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Mr. T. Suryanarayana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Kumar Nair, Adv. Ms. Lavanya Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Ritik Gupta, Adv.
For the Parties : Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Adit Khorana, Adv. Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Archana Sahadeva, AOR Mr. Tejveer Bhatia, Adv. Mr. R. Swrup, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Mr. T. Suryanarayana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Kumar Nair, Adv. Ms. Lavanya Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Ritik Gupta, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Contention that payments constitute royalty notwithstanding the ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. (Para 3 )
3. The High Court relied on an overruled judgment and failed to analyze the factual findings recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and authorities. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. A judgment relying on overruled precedent without analyzing factual findings by lower authorities must be set aside and remanded for re-examination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
5. Impugned judgment set aside and remanded to the High Court to re-examine the issue and question of law. (Para 3 , 5 )
6. What is the consequence of a High Court relying on a precedent subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court?
The judgment may be set aside and remanded to the High Court to re-examine the issue, allowing parties to rely on the updated legal position established by the Supreme Court. (Para 1 , 3 )
7. How does the failure of a High Court to analyze factual findings by the ITAT affect the judgment?
When the High Court fails to analyze facts found by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and authorities, it provides grounds for remanding the case for a proper re-examination of the issue and question of law. (Para 2 , 3 )
8. May parties rely on the outcome of a pending Review Petition in a remanded case?
Yes, if an order is passed in a pending Review Petition related to the matter, parties are permitted to rely upon that order during the re-examination. (Para 4 )
ORDER :
1. The impugned judgment(s) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore had relied on the earlier judgment of the High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax & Another v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.’ [(2012) 345 ITR 494], which judgment has been set aside and overruled by this Court in the decision reported as Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Another [(2022) 3 SCC 321].
2. Before us, learned counsel for both parties have rightly stated that the facts, as found by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the authorities have not been analyzed by the High Court.
3. In view of the aforesaid position, we set aside the impugned judgment with an order of remand to the High Court to re-examine the issue and the question of law. Parties would be entitled to raise all pleas and contentions, in accordance with law including reliance on the judgment in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited (supra), and the contention of the Revenue that notwithstanding the said judgment, the payments would be covered under the head ‘Royalty’ etc.
4. We are informed that the Review Petition No. 1422/2021 titled “The Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation & Another v. Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited Etc.,” is pending. In case any order is passed, it will be open to the parties to rely upon the said order.
5. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
