THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOOD RICH AEROSPACE

ITA/430/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01035729201511 December 2015Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question involved in this appeal is covered by its previous decision in Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- Tata Elxsi Limited (2012) 349 ITR 98. Consequently, in light of this judgment, the appeal stands dismissed. However, the Court noted a submission by the learned counsel for the appellants that an appeal against the Tata Elxsi Limited judgment has been filed before the Apex Court and is pending. In the event the Apex Court reverses the judgment of the High Court, the assessing authority is directed to pass consequential orders in terms of Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in conformity with the outcome of the appeal before the Supreme Court. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on the precedent.

What were the facts?

This appeal, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Officer (Appellants) challenges an order dated March 27, 2015, passed in C.O. No. 3/Bang/2015 for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The appeal arises from a decision concerning M/s Good Rich Aerospace Service Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent). The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru is considering the substantial questions of law presented in the appeal. The procedural history indicates that the High Court's decision in a related matter, Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- Tata Elxsi Limited (2012) 349 ITR 98, is central to the present appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- Tata Elxsi Limited (2012) 349 ITR 98, which is stated to cover the question involved in this appeal, is applicable and binding. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee's side. The appeal is being decided based on a precedent. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, submits that the question involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- Tata Elxsi Limited (2012) 349 ITR 98. The Revenue is essentially relying on this precedent to decide the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 260(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

ITA NO. 430/2015

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(2), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

… APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND-ADV)

AND:

M/S GOOD RICH AEROSPACE SERVICE PVT. LTD., SY.NO.14/1 & 15/1, MARUTHI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-2, HOODY VILLAGE, WHITEFIELD ROAD, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 048. PAN: AAACB 8857H. … RESPONDENT

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 27.3.2015 PASSED IN C.O. NO.3/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 AND FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ETC.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The question involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- Tata Elxsi Limited (2012) 349 ITR 98. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, this appeal stands dismissed.

However, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that against the judgment of this Court, an appeal is filed to the Apex Court and is pending consideration.

In the event of the Apex Court reversing the judgment of this Court, the assessing authority shall pass consequential orders in terms of Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in conformity with the outcome of the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE TL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →