THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX vs. M/S MANYATA PROMOTERS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/93/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01010812202322 August 2023Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the ITAT had disposed of the appeal in favour of the assessee by following two previous decisions of the High Court: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore V. Gokaldas Images (P.) Ltd. and Sobha Developers Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The Revenue's counsel did not dispute the correctness of the legal position taken by the ITAT based on these precedents. Consequently, as the ITAT's decision was based on established High Court rulings, and the Revenue did not contest these rulings, the appeal was dismissed. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax and the Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka against an order passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru. The ITAT's order, dated September 6, 2022, pertained to Assessment Year 2017-2018 and had confirmed an earlier order of the Appellate Commissioner, thereby ruling in favour of the assessee, M/s. Manyata Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue sought to set aside the ITAT's order and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law by confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner, thereby ruling in favour of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-2018? (Question of law) The Revenue contended that the ITAT's decision was incorrect and sought to uphold the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessee, through its senior advocate, submitted that the ITAT had disposed of the appeal by answering the questions of law in its favour, relying on two decisions of the High Court: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore V. Gokaldas Images (P.) Ltd. and Sobha Developers Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The Revenue's counsel did not dispute this position of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2023:KHC:29760-DB ITA No. 93 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.93 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, 3rd Floor, C.R. Building, Queen's Road Bengaluru-560 001. 2. The Joint commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Central Circle-1(3), Present Address-DCIT, Central Circle-1(3) 3rd Floor, C.R. Building, Queen's Road Bengaluru-560 001. …Appellants (By Shri. M. Dilip, Standing Counsel) AND: M/s. Manyata Promoters Pvt. Ltd., (erstwhile Embassy Office Parks Pvt. Ltd., since merged), No.150, Embassy Point Infantry Road Bengaluru-560 001 PAN: AADCM 2448J. …Respondent (By Sri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate for Sri. A. Mahesh Chowdhary., Advocate) Digitally signed by MALA K N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2023:KHC:29760-DB ITA No. 93 of 2023

The Advocate for the appellant has filed the above ITA / Income Tax Appeal Under Sec.260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to i. Formulate the Substantial questions of law stated above. ii. Allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in ITA No. 573/Bang/2022 dated 06.09.2022 for Assessment Year 2017- 2018 Annexure-C confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1 (3), Bengaluru and etc.

This Appeal, coming on for Admission, this day, P.S. Dinesh Kumar J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT

Heard Shri. M. Dilip, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri. T. Suryanarayana, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee.

2.

At the outset, Shri. Suryanarayana submits that the ITAT has disposed of the appeal answering the questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, by following two decisions of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax,

- 3 -

NC: 2023:KHC:29760-DB ITA No. 93 of 2023 Bangalore V. Gokaldas Images (P.) Ltd.,1 and Sobha Developers Ltd., V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. LTU, Bangalore2. Hence, this appeal does not merit consideration.

3.

Shri. M.Dilip for the Revenue does not dispute the said position of law.

4.

In that view of the above, this appeal stands dismissed.

No costs. SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE SD LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38 1 [2020] 122 taxmann.com 160 (Karnataka) 2 [2021] 125 taxmann.com 72 (Karnataka)

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 →