THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

PDF · subscribers
ITA/748/2006HC KarnatakaKAHC01027620200623 July 2012Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka observed that the question of law involved in this appeal (ITA No. 748/2006) is identical to that in ITA No. 95/2006, which was disposed of on July 18, 2012. The Court noted that in ITA No. 95/2006, the question of law was answered against the revenue. The Court further relied on its earlier decision in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax and Another vs. M/s. Canfin Homes Limited, reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3153, which was also followed in ITA No. 95/2006. Based on this precedent and the prior decision, the High Court held that the question of law is answered against the revenue. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

This Indian Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) judgment concerns an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellants) against M/s. Syndicate Bank (Respondent). The appeal, filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenges an order dated November 11, 2005, passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No. 16/Bang/2004. This ITAT order had confirmed the order of the Appellate Commissioner, which in turn had presumably overturned an order by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessment year in question is 1999-00. The High Court of Karnataka is considering the formulation of substantial questions of law and the allowance of the appeal to set aside the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to formulate substantial questions of law arising from the ITAT's order. (Question of procedure/law) Assessee (Revenue) Contentions: The Revenue contended that the High Court should formulate substantial questions of law and allow the appeal, setting aside the ITAT's order. They sought to confirm the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the provided text for the Revenue's arguments. Respondent (Assessee) Contentions: The Respondent, M/s. Syndicate Bank, is not recorded as having made specific contentions in the provided text. The judgment indicates that the question of law was answered against the revenue, implying the respondent likely argued in favor of the ITAT's decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR I.T.A. No.748 OF 2006 BETWEEN:- 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Attavara, Mangalore. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Asst), Special Range, C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. Appellants (By Sri E. Sanmathi Indrakumar, Advocate) AND:- M/s. Syndicate Bank, Accounts Dept. Tax Cell, H.O. Manipal – 576 104. Respondent (By M/s. King & Patridge, Advocates) This ITA is filed U/s.260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 11-11-2005 passed in Int.TA 16/Bang/2004 for the Assessment Year 1999-00, praying that this Hon’ble

2 Court may be pleased to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and (ii) allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in Int.TA 16/Bang/2004 dated 11-11-2005 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner & confirm the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (Asst.) Special Range, Mangalore, in the interest of justice and equity. This appeal is coming on for hearing this day, SREEDHAR RAO, J., delivered the following: J U D G M E N T The question of law involved in this case and in I.T.A. No.95/2006 disposed of on 18.07.2012 is one and the same. The question of law in I.T.A.No.95/2006 is answered against the revenue. In that regard, the earlier decision of this court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax and Another –vs- M/s. Canfin Homes Limited reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3153, is relied on in I.T.A.No.95/2006. In that view, the question of law is answered against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE NM*

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 →