THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NOORAHMED G BAGWALE

ITA/5013/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC02009123201329 January 2014Bench: N.KUMAR,C.R.KUMARASWAMY3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the question involved was whether the cash payment made by the assessee to the Railways, a concern of the Union of India, was in accordance with Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules. The Court referred to its own previous decision in identical matters, specifically ITA 5018/2012, disposed of on 18.09.2013. In that prior case, the Court had held that payments made to the Railways, being a concern of the Union of India, were indeed in accordance with Rule 6DD(b). Consequently, the Court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the present appeal, mirroring the reasoning in the earlier judgment. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the same grounds.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax and Income Tax Officer) against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore Bench. The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessee is Sri. Noorhamed G. Bagwale, proprietor of M/s. Noorani Steel Traders. The core issue revolves around a cash payment made by the assessee to the Railways, which is an entity of the Union of India. The ITAT had previously passed an order in ITA No. 539/Bang/2012, dated 28.02.2013, which the Revenue is challenging.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the cash payment made by the assessee to the Railways, a concern of the Union of India, is in accordance with Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The appeal is filed by the Revenue, and the reasoning for dismissal is based on a previous High Court decision. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue is challenging the ITAT's order, implying they believe the cash payment to the Railways does not fall under the exceptions provided by Rule 6DD(b). They are likely arguing that the payment should have been disallowed as an expenditure incurred in cash exceeding the prescribed limits, unless it falls within a specific exemption. The Revenue's appeal is based on the premise that a substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.R.KUMARASWAMY INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5013/2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX C. R. BUILDING NAVANAGAR HUBLI 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFIER WARD – 1(2), HUBLI …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. Y. V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) A N D : SRI. NOORAHMED G. BAGWALE PROP. M/S. NOORANI STEEL TRADERS NEAR BANKAPUR CHOWK ISLAMPUR ROAD HUBLI …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) - - - - - - -

: 2 : THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AGAINST ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO.539/BANG/2012 DATED 28.02.2013 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH “C”, BANGALROE, APPEAL FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 BY AN ASSESSEES IS HEREBY PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The question that is involved in this appeal is whether the cash payment made by the assessee to the Railways which is a concern of the Union of India is in accordance with Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules? In identical matters which were heard before this Court in ITA 5018/2012 which was disposed of on 18.09.2013, the said question has been answered holding that the payment made to Railways which is a concern of the Union of India is in accordance with the said provision. The appeal was disposed as no substantial question of law is involved. For the very

: 3 : same reason, this appeal is also dismissed, as no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE LB

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →