THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S THE ESTATE

PDF · subscribers
ITA/127/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01022394201626 July 2017Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, based on the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue), held that the question raised in the present appeal has been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karn). Consequently, the Court found no reason to entertain the appeal further. The ratio decidendi is that if a legal issue has been definitively settled by a higher court within its jurisdiction, subsequent appeals raising the same issue are likely to be dismissed summarily. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Officer (Appellants) against M/s. The Estate (Respondent) for the Assessment Year 2000-2001. The appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 11.09.2015 passed in ITA No.578/BANG/2006. The appellants are seeking to formulate substantial questions of law and set aside the said order. The procedural history indicates that the appeal was presented before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru for admission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial question of law raised in this appeal is answered against the appellants by this Court? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (Respondent) in this appeal. The focus is on the submission made by the revenue's counsel. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly submits that the question raised in this appeal has already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karn).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.127/2016

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2017

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.127/2016

BETWEEN :

1.

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIT (A), 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE-560 095

2.

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI FOR SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATES)

AND :

M/S.THE ESTATE SHERIFF CENTER, 5TH FLOOR 73/1, ST.MARKS ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

...RESPONDENT

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.578/BANG/2006, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001.

ITA No.127/2016

-2- THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL 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. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (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 →