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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/54/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01021187201707 August 2017Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission by the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) that the question raised in the present appeal has already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)]. Consequently, the Court found no purpose in ordering notice on the interlocutory application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, both the interlocutory application and the appeal were dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that if a legal issue has been definitively settled by a higher court against a party, further appeals on the same issue, especially with delayed filing, are unlikely to succeed and may be dismissed summarily.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (the Revenue) against an order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2006-2007 and challenges the Tribunal's decision in ITA No.1347/Bang/2011. The Revenue sought to formulate substantial questions of law and set aside the Tribunal's order. The appeal was filed with a delay, for which an interlocutory application (I.A. No.2/2017) was filed for condonation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial questions of law, as formulated by the appellants, warrant admission for adjudication by this Court, considering the prior pronouncements of this Court? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal should be considered and the Tribunal's order set aside. The Revenue relied on the fact that the appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, indicating a belief that substantial questions of law exist. The Revenue's counsel fairly submitted that the question raised in this appeal has already been answered against the Revenue by this Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)].

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.54/2017

-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.54/2017

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.1347/BANG/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 2007.

ITA No.54/2017

-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.2/2017 filed for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. I.A.No.2/2017 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 →