- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010239492020 NC: 2026:KHC:49630-DB ITA No. 88 of 2021 C/W ITA No. 94 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2021 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1) (4) BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (COMMON IN BOTH APPEALS) (BY SRI. SANMATHI E. I., AND SRI DILIP, ADVS.) AND: M/S. EMULEX COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD., MILLENIUM TOWERS-C, 3RD FLOOR, “THE MILLENNIA”, 1 AND 2, MURPHY ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008, PAN NO: AACCA9990L …RESPONDENT (COMMON IN BOTH APPEALS) (BY MISS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADV.) Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010239492020 NC: 2026:KHC:49630-DB ITA No. 88 of 2021 C/W ITA No. 94 of 2021 THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 08.11.2019 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO. 230/BANG/2015 AND IT(TP)A NO.152/BANG/2015 RESPECTIVELY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, PRAYING TO A) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND ETC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The above appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “1961 Act”) questioning the order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Bangalore (for short “Tribunal”) in IT (TP) A No.230/Bang/2015 by the assessee and in IT (TP) A No.152/Bang/2015 by the revenue for the assessment year 2010-11 raising the substantial questions of law stated in the memorandum of appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010239492020 NC: 2026:KHC:49630-DB ITA No. 88 of 2021 C/W ITA No. 94 of 2021 2. In the appeal memorandum, tax effect is shown at Rs.4,77,69,560/-. However, Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee would submit that the tax effect amount shown in the appeal memorandum is after addition in pursuance of the order passed under Section 92CA of 1961 Act. Learned counsel for the assessee also files a memo of calculation to contend that the tax effect is Rs.1,62,36,872/-, less than Rs.2.00 Crores. Learned counsel for the respondent- assessee would submit that in terms of the Circular No.9/2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 19.07.2024, the monetary limit to maintain the appeal before the High Court is Rs.2.00 Crores. The said Circular would also apply to the pending appeals. 3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, the tax effect shown in the appeal memorandum is after adjustment in terms of the order passed under Section 92CA of 1961 Act. In fact, the net - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010239492020 NC: 2026:KHC:49630-DB ITA No. 88 of 2021 C/W ITA No. 94 of 2021 tax effect as indicated by respondent-assessee would be less than Rs.2.00 Crores. Hence, both the appeals stand dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the appellants to revive the appeal, if need arises. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29