THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/96/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC01005083202008 July 2021Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) submitted that the proposed questions of law do not arise for consideration from out of the impugned order. The Revenue sought liberty to urge these questions of law in a subsequent appeal, ITA No.212/2021. In light of this submission, the High Court disposed of the present appeal by holding that the proposed questions of law do not arise for consideration in this appeal. Liberty was expressly reserved for the revenue to urge these questions of law in the subsequent appeal filed in ITA No.212/2021. No finding was given on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appellants) against M/s. Microchip Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent). The appeal challenges an order dated 28.09.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Bangalore, in appeal proceedings bearing I.T.(TP)A.No.187(BANG)2014 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appellants are seeking to set aside the said appellate order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proposed questions of law arise for consideration out of the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2009-10, as per Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) submitted that the questions of law proposed do not arise for consideration from out of the order impugned in this appeal. The Revenue sought liberty to urge these questions of law in a separate appeal, ITA No.212/2021.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

I.T.A. NO.96/2020

BETWEEN:

1.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-4, BMTC COMPLEX KORMANGALA, BENGALURU

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-12(1), 14/3, 4TH FLOOR, RASTROTHANA BHAVAN, (OPP. RBI), BENGALURU .... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANMATHI .E.I, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT LTD. NO.149-B, EPIP I PHASE INDUSTRIAL AREA, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU-560 066 PAN NO. AABCM 9868J

(BY SRI. SURYANARAYANA .T, ADVOCATE)

... RESPONDENT

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED: 28.09.2019 PASSED BY THE

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN I.T.(TP)A.NO.187(BANG)2014 (ANNEXURE-‘A’) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL; AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT.

THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the questions of law which are proposed do not arise for consideration from out of the order, which is impugned in this appeal. Learned counsel seeks liberty to urge these questions of law in ITA No.212/2021. In that view of the matter, this appeal is disposed of holding that the proposed questions of law do not arise for consideration in this appeal. However, liberty is reserved to the revenue to urge these questions of law in the subsequent appeal filed in ITA No.212/2021.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

KGR*

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 →