THE PR.COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CENTUM ELECTRONICS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/48/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01019798201701 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. The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly submitted that the question raised in the appeal had already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [(2012) 341 ITR 385 (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 legal issue has been authoritatively decided by the High Court in a similar case, the Revenue should not pursue appeals on the same point, thereby avoiding multiplicity of litigation. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'B' Bench, Bengaluru. The appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the ITAT's order dated May 11, 2016, in ITA No. 767/Bang/2012. The assessment year in question is 2005-2006. The respondent is M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd. The appeal was listed for admission before the High Court of Karnataka.

What were the issues?

The appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, praying to formulate a substantial question of law and set aside the appellate order of the ITAT. The specific substantial question of law is not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the appeal challenges the ITAT's order for the assessment year 2005-2006. The Revenue's contention, as indicated by the submission of its counsel, is that the question raised in the appeal has been answered against the Revenue by this Court in a previous decision. The Respondent (assessee) has not recorded any arguments in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.48/2017

-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.48/2017

BETWEEN :

1.

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIT (A), 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA

BENGALURU-560 095

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-11(2) PRESENT ADDRESS CIRCLE-2(1)(1)

2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA

BENGALURU-560 095

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI ARAVIND.K.V. ADVOCATE)

AND :

M/S.CENTUM ELECTRONICS LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SOLECTRON CENTUM ELECTRONICS LTD.) NO.44, KHB INDUSTRIAL AREA YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU PAN: AAACC7369P

...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

ITA No.48/2017

-2-

APPELLATE ORDER DATED:11.05.2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT ‘B’ BENCH IN ITA NO.767/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006.

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 question raised in this appeal is answered against the appellants by this Court in 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 →