THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S CELSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/325/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01029382201631 July 2017Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly submitted that the question raised in this appeal has already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Karn). Based on this submission, the Court found no reason to entertain the appeal and accordingly dismissed it. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue has been decided against the Revenue by the same High Court, the Revenue should not pursue identical appeals. No specific issue was left undecided as the appeal was dismissed on the basis of a precedent.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income-tax and Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax) against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2007-2008. The appeal challenges the appellate order dated 16.10.2015 in ITA No.1347/BANG/2014. The assessee is M/s. Celstream Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue is seeking to formulate substantial questions of law and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial question of law formulated by the appellants is to be decided in their favour? The Revenue contended that the question raised in the appeal should be decided in their favour. The Revenue relied on the fact that they are seeking to formulate substantial questions of law. The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the Revenue beyond this general statement. The Respondent (assessee) did not make any arguments recorded in the judgment. The judgment also does not specify the exact provision of the IT Act that forms the basis of the dispute, other than the appeal being filed under Section 260-A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.325/2016

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 31ST 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.325/2016

BETWEEN :

1.

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIT (A), 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE-560 095

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA

BENGALURU-560 095

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI ARAVIND K.V. ADVOCATE)

AND :

M/S. CELSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. NO.29A, 2ND CROSS, PHASE-I ELECTRONIC CITY BANGALORE-560 100

...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 APPELLATE ORDER DATED:16.10.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1347/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008.

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

ITA No.325/2016

-2-

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 →