THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S. INFOSYS BPO LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/337/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01029808201631 July 2017Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly submitted that the questions raised in this appeal had already been answered against the appellants by this Court in previous judgments: CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 385 (Karn) and 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 the issues raised in an appeal have been authoritatively decided against the Revenue by the same High Court, the appeal is likely to be dismissed.

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) dated 30.11.2015 in ITA No.941/BANG/2015. The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2010-2011 and challenges the appellate order concerning M/s. Infosys BPO Ltd. The Revenue sought to formulate substantial questions of law and set aside the appellate order. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are to be decided in favour of the Revenue or the Assessee, concerning the Assessment Year 2010-2011. Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions are recorded for the Assessee in the judgment. Revenue: The Revenue contended that the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) was erroneous and sought to set it aside. The Revenue's appeal was based on substantial questions of law which were not explicitly detailed in the provided text but were implied to be the subject of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.337/2016

-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.337/2016

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-3(1) (1), 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI ARAVIND.K.V. ADVOCATE)

AND :

M/S. INFOSYS BPO LTD., BUILDING 48, 4TH FLOOR 26/3, 26/4, ELECTRONIC CITY HOSUR ROAD 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:30.11.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.941/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011.

ITA No.337/2016

-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 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 →