THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S DANISH STEEL CLUSTER PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/17/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01020384201703 August 2017Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) conceded that the questions raised in the present appeal had already been decided against the Revenue by this Court in two previous judgments: CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [(2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn)] and CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)]. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine without delving into the merits of the substantial questions of law. The ratio decidendi is that if the issues raised in an appeal have been authoritatively decided by the High Court in previous cases, the current appeal will be dismissed on the same grounds.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (appellants) against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.1394/BANG/2015 for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The respondent is M/s. Danish Steel Cluster Pvt. Ltd. The appellants sought to formulate substantial questions of law and set aside the ITAT's order. The High Court of Karnataka heard the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial questions of law, as formulated, arise for consideration in this appeal. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not present any arguments as the appeal was dismissed based on prior judgments. The judgment does not record any specific contentions for the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly submitted that the questions raised in this appeal have been answered against the appellants by this Court in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [(2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn)] and CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)].

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.17/2017

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3RD 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.17/2017

BETWEEN :

1.

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIT (A), 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA

BENGALURU-560 095

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2(1) (2), 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU -560 095

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND ADVOCATE)

AND :

M/S.DANISH STEEL CLUSTER PVT. LTD. NO.46, BOMMASANDRA JIGANI LINK ROAD BENGALURU 560 106

...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 24.06.2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT ‘C’ BENCH IN ITA NO.1394/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 2008.

ITA No.17/2017

-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 questions raised in this appeal are answered against the appellants by this Court in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [(2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn)] and 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 →