THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AURIGENE DISCOVERY TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/413/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01037237201601 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 filed by the revenue. The Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the questions of law raised in the present appeal had been decided against the appellants by this Court in its previous judgments in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. and CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. Based on these precedents, the Court found no merit in the appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appellants, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income-Tax Officer, have filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the appellate order dated February 12, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'B' Bench, in ITA No.804/BANG/2015. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2010-11. The respondent is M/s. Aurigene Discovery Technologies (P) Ltd. The High Court of Karnataka is hearing the appeal for admission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal are to be decided in favour of the revenue (appellants) or the assessee (respondent)? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The respondent is M/s. Aurigene Discovery Technologies (P) Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the appellants (revenue) fairly submits that the questions raised in this appeal have already been answered against the appellants by this Court in two previous decisions: CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)] and CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [(2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn)].

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.413/2016

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST 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.413/2016

BETWEEN :

1.

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA

BENGALURU-560 095

2.

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2) 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA

BENGALURU-560 095

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI ARAVIND K.V. ADVOCATE)

AND :

M/S.AURIGENE DISCOVERY TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. NO.39/40, KIADB INDL. AREA ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE II ELECTRONIC CITY HOSUR ROAD BENGALURU

...RESPONDENT

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

ITA No.413/2016

-2-

DATED:12.02.2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT ‘B’ BENCH IN ITA NO.804/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11.

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. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)] and CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [(2012) 341 ITR 385 (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 →