1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SLP (CC) No. 6789 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:Knoah Solutions Private Ltd. …….Petitioner

VersusIncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Hyderabad ……Respondent

LIST OF DATES & EVENTS

28.10.2004 A transfer pricing report was prepared by the auditors of the Petitioner, in respect of the international transactions entered into by the Petitioner.

29.10.2004 The Petitioner filed return of income in the prescribed from admitting income of Rs. 5,286 (Rupees five thousand two hundred eighty six only) after claiming deduction of Rs.1,13,94,701 (Rupees one crore thirteen lacs ninety four thousand seven hundred one only) under section 10B of the Income Tax Act.

09.01.2006 The Assessing Officer (Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Hyderabad referred the matter to Transfer Pricing Officer.

02.02.2006 A notice under Section 92CA (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued by the Office of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) to the Petitioner Company in connection with the computation of arm’s length price and also calling upon them to furnish certain relevant documents.

Notice dated 02.02.2006 at Annexure - P1, Pages 27-29, SLP Paperbook

17.02.2006 The Petitioner Company in response to the Notice dated 02.02.2006 issued under Section 92CA (2) of the Act filed its reply on the said date.

Reply dated 17.02.2006 at Annexure - P2, Pages 30-34, SLP Paperbook

2

22.12. 2006 The Transfer Pricing Officer passedsubmitted the transfer pricing Order under Section 92CA(3) of the Actreport and recommended the Assessing Officer to make an addition of Rs. 95,87,498 (Rupees ninety five lacs eighty seven thousand four hundred ninety eight only) to the income returned by the Petitioner.

Order dated 22.12.2006 at Annexure – P3, Pages 35-87, SLP Paperbook

29.12.2006 The Assessing Officer passed assessment order determining the taxable income of the Petitioner at Rs. 95,92,784 (Rupees ninety five lacs ninety two thousand seven hundred eighty four only) [i.e. Rs. 95,87,498 (Rupees ninety five lacs eighty seven thousand four hundred ninety eight only) plus Rs. 5286 (Rupees five thousand two hundred eighty six only)]. The Assessing Officer has adopted the arm’s length price of services rendered by the Petitioner estimated for a sum of Rs.12,03,80,873 (Rupees twelve crores three lacs eighty thousand eight hundred seventy three only) and made a specific addition of Rs.95,87,498 (Rupees ninety five lacs eighty seven thousand four hundred ninety eight only) to the income returned making the balance tax payable by the Petitioner at Rs. 45,75,181 (Rupees Forty five lakhs seventy five thousand one hundred eighty one only). (See Page 93)

Assessment Order dated 29.12.2006 at Annexure – P4, Pages 88-93, SLP Paperbook

02.02.2007 The Petitioner, aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 29.12.2006 passed by the Assessment Officer, has filed an appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – III, Hyderabad (herein after referred to as “the CIT (Appeals)”.

Appeal before Hon’ble the CIT (Appeals) at Annexure – P5, Pages 94-106, SLP Paperbook

Statement of Facts at Annexure – P5, Pages 100-102, SLP Paperbook

Grounds of Appeal at Annexure – P5, Pages 103-106, SLP Paperbook

3

19.02.2009 The Learned CIT (Appeals) Commissioner of Inbased on the written submissions filed by the Petitioner, remand reports called for and the rejoinders filed by the Petitioner, has passed an order sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Order dated 19.02.2009 at Annexure – P6, Pages 107-130, SLP PaperbookFindings at Pages 112-124, SLP

PaperbookConclusion at Pages 124-125, SLP Paperbook

30.04.2009 Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (herein after referred to as “the ITAT”). The Petitioner challenged the order of the Learned CIT (Appeals) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on various grounds of inconsistencies in the order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeals).

Grounds of appeal dated 30.04.2009 at Annexure – P7, Pages 131-136, SLP Paperbook Commissioner

(Appeals).

25.01.2012 The Learned Income Tax AppellateITAT Tribunal without appreciating the case put forth by the Petitioner, dismissed the same. The Learned ITAT Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Learned CIT (Appeals) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but in the process gavehas given a perverse finding upholding the appellate order on different grounds, which themselves are unsustainable in law.

Order dated 25.01.2012 at Annexure – P8, Pages 137-157, SLP PaperbookFindings at Pages 155-156, SLP

PaperbookConclusion at Page 156, SLP Paperbook

16.07.2013 The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said Order of the Learned ITAT then appealed to the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Hon’ble High Court vide the impugned judgment and final Order dismisseded the appeal of the Petitioner on the ground that there is no

4

question of law arising from the order of the Learned ITATIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, despite the facts of the case giving rise to substantial questions of law which merited consideration by the Hon’ble High Court.

Impugned judgment at Pages 1- 4, SLP Paperbook 30.03.2015 Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and final

Order of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Petitioner herein preferred the instant Special Leave Petition.

Special Leave Petition at Pages 5-17