PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. JAGANNATH S SHETTY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/650/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01046876201601 August 2017Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the appellants (revenue) conceded that the question raised in the present appeal has already been decided against the revenue by the High Court itself in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [(2013)359 ITR 565 (Karn)]. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court found no substantial question of law to be formulated and dismissed the appeal. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appellants, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Mysuru and the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandya, have filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal challenges an order dated June 30, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'A' Bench, in ITA No. 724/Bang/2015. The assessment year in question is 2004-05. The respondent is Shri Jagannath S. Shetty, proprietor of M/s. Sagar Enterprises. The appeal is before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru for admission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should formulate a substantial question of law to set aside the appellate order passed by the ITAT. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The assessee is the respondent in this appeal before the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, as the appellant before the High Court, seeks to set aside the ITAT's order. The learned counsel for the appellants (revenue) fairly submits that the question raised in this appeal has been answered against the appellants by this Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [(2013)359 ITR 565 (Karn)].

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.650/2016

-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.650/2016

BETWEEN :

1.

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-MYSURU

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MANDYA

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND :

SHRI. JAGANNATH S. SHETTY M/S. SAGAR ENTERPRISES V.V.ROAD, MANDYA P.A: ABNPS1154K

...RESPONDENT

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED:30.06.2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT ‘A’ BENCH IN ITA NO.724/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05.

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA No.650/2016

-2-

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. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [(2013)359 ITR 565 (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 →