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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/414/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01037238201601 August 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) made a fair submission that the questions raised in the present appeal have already been decided against the Revenue by this Court in the cases of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. and CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. Based on this submission and the precedent set by the Court in those cases, the appeal was accordingly dismissed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the specific issues raised by the Revenue, relying instead on its prior rulings. The ratio decidendi is that if the questions of law raised in an appeal have already been authoritatively decided by the High Court against the Revenue, the appeal will be dismissed on that ground.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Income-Tax Officer) against an order dated 12.02.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'B' Bench, in ITA No.805/BANG/2015. The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue is challenging the decision of the ITAT concerning the assessment of M/s. Aurigene Discovery Technologies (P) Ltd., the Respondent assessee. The appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking formulation of substantial questions of law and setting aside the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Hon'ble High Court is to formulate substantial questions of law arising from the ITAT's order dated 12.02.2016 in ITA No.805/BANG/2015 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The assessee is the respondent in this appeal before the High Court. Revenue's Contentions: 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 previous decisions. The Revenue relies on the judgments in 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.414/2016

-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.414/2016

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, KORAMANGALA

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.414/2016

-2-

DATED:12.02.2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT ‘B’ BENCH IN ITA NO.805/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12.

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 →