THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MINDTREE LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/53/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01021332201707 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 that the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) conceded that the question raised in the present appeal had already been decided against the Revenue by the same Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)]. Consequently, the Court found no merit in proceeding with the appeal, as ordering notice would serve no purpose. The interlocutory application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself were accordingly dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that if a legal issue has been definitively settled by a higher court in a similar context, an appeal raising the same issue, even with a delay, is unlikely to succeed and may be dismissed summarily.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (LTU) and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (LTU), Bengaluru, against an order passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench. The appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the Tribunal's order dated 11.05.2016 in ITA No.1328/BANG/2011 for the Assessment Year 2004-2005. The appellants sought to formulate substantial questions of law and set aside the impugned order. An interlocutory application (I.A. No.1/2017) was filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial questions of law, as sought to be formulated by the appellants, are to be decided in favour of the appellants or the respondent assessee, M/s. Mindtree Ltd. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the appeal is dismissed based on a previous ruling. Revenue's Contentions: The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly submits that the question raised in this appeal has already been answered against the appellants by this Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)]. Therefore, the Revenue concedes that no purpose would be served by ordering notice on the interlocutory application for condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.53/2017

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH 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.53/2017

BETWEEN :

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE

BENGALURU-560 085

2.

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

TAX, LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE

BENGALURU-560 085

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND,ADVOCATE)

AND :

M/S.MINDTREE LTD., (FORMERLY MIND TREE CONSULTING PVT. LTD.,) GLOBAL VILLAGE, R.V.C.E.POST MYLASANDRA, MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU

...RESPONDENT

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED:11.05.2016 PASSED BY THE INCOME- TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “B” BENCH, BENGALURU IN I.T.A.NO.1328/BANG/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 2005.

ITA No.53/2017

-2-

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION 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. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)]. Hence, no purpose will be served by ordering notice on I.A. No.1/2017 filed for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. I.A.No.1/2017 and the appeal are 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 →