PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S RETAIL FULL SERVICE LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/116/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01023247201702 August 2017Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the appellants conceded that the question raised in the appeal had already been decided against the revenue by the High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)]. Therefore, following its own precedent, the Court found no grounds to entertain the appeal. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appellants, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 and the Income Tax Officer, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal challenges an order dated October 26, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Bangalore, in ITA No. 57/Bang/2016. The assessment year in question is 2009-2010. The respondent is M/s Retail Full Serve Ltd., formerly known as Super Value Services India Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was filed seeking formulation of substantial questions of law and to set aside the Tribunal's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should formulate substantial questions of law and set aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 26.10.2016 for Assessment Year 2009-2010? (Question of law) The appellants' contention is that the High Court should consider the substantial questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The judgment records that the learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the question raised in this appeal has been answered against the appellants by this Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)]. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.116/2017

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2017

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.116/2017

BETWEEN :

1.

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-5

BMTC COMPLEX

KORAMANGALA

BENGALURU – 560 001

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WARD(5)(1)(4)

BENGALURU

..APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND :

M/S RETAIL FULL SERVE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUPER VALUE SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.) LEVEL-3, PINE VALLEY EMBASSY GOLD LINK BUSINESS PARK, KORAMANGALA INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD BENGALURU – 560 071

...RESPONDENT

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2016 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

ITA No.116/2017

-2-

‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.57/BANG/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):

Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the question raised in this appeal is answered against the appellants by this Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)]. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →