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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/49/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01038076201702 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 dismissal was based on a concession made by the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue). The counsel fairly submitted that the question raised in the present appeal had already been answered against the Revenue by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [(2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn)]. Therefore, following the precedent established in the Yokogawa India Ltd. case, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order and accordingly dismissed the appeal. No specific finding on the merits of the case was recorded as the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the concession.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax) under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision in ITA No. 768/BANG/2012 dated May 11, 2016. The Revenue seeks to set aside the ITAT's order and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner, which in turn had confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The respondent is M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd. The appeal was presented for admission before the High Court of Karnataka.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in its decision regarding the issue that is the subject of this appeal, which is against the Revenue. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, represented by the appellants, has brought forth a question of law before the High Court. The learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the question raised in this appeal has been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [(2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn)]. This implies the Revenue's argument was based on a specific legal question that was previously decided by the High Court in a similar matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.49/2017

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2ND 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.49/2017

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, KORMANGALA

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

...RESPONDENT

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT ‘B’ BENCH,

ITA No.49/2017

-2-

BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 768/BANG/2012 DATED 11.05.2016 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU.

THIS ITA 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 →