ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BANGALORE vs. M/S. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1333/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 October 2020AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the first issue regarding the proviso to Section 2(15) was squarely covered in favor of the assessee by the Karnataka High Court's judgment in the assessee's own case. The second issue regarding depreciation was also covered by a Tribunal order in the assessee's own case, which followed a Supreme Court judgment.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the applicability of the proviso to Section 2(15) and the allowability of depreciation. The assessee argued that both issues were covered by previous judgments in their own case.

What were the issues?

Whether the proviso to Section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee and whether depreciation is allowable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI A. K. GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, C. A
For Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT DR
Hearing: 15.10.2020Pronounced: 19.10.2020

O R D E R PER ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, A. M.: This appeal is filed by the revenue and the same is directed against an order of learned CIT(A) – 14, LTU, Bengaluru dated 20.04.2016.

2.

In this appeal, although various grounds are raised by the revenue but there are only two grievances. First grievance is this that learned CIT (A) is not justified in holding that proviso to section 2 (15) is not applicable in the present case. Second grievance is this that learned CIT (A) is not justified in holding that depreciation is allowable in the present case by ignoring the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court rendered in the case of Lissie Medical Institution vs. CIT, 348 ITR 344 and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI, 199 ITR 43 3. In course of hearing, learned DR of the revenue supported the assessment order on both issues and learned AR of the assessee supported the order of CIT (A) on both issues. Learned AR of the assessee also submitted that on pages 373 to 388 of the paper book is the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in assessee’s own case in of 2016 dated 30.09.2020 and in this judgment in Para 8 on page 385, it is noted by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court that the tribunal has held that the proviso to section 2 (15) is not applicable in case of this assessee and thereafter, in para 9. on page 385, it is noted by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court that the order passed by the tribunal is based on meticulous appreciation of materials on record and it is not perverse by any stretch of imagination and confirmed the tribunal order. He submitted that the first issue raised by the revenue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by this judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in assessee’s own case. Regarding the second issue i.e. regarding allowability of depreciation in the present case, Learned AR of the assessee placed reliance on the tribunal order rendered in the own case of the assessee for A. Y. 2012 – 13 in ITA No. 951/Bang/2017 dated 03.07.2020 copy on pages345 to 362 of the paper book and pointed out that in Paras 14 to 16 of this tribunal order on pages 360 and 361 of the paper book, the tribunal has followed a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarat Charitable Foundation Poona as reported in 89 taxman.com 127 and decided this issue in favour of the assessee.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the first issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in assessee’s own case. Similarly, second issue is also squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the tribunal order in assessee’s own case in which, the tribunal has followed a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarat Charitable Foundation Poona (Supra). Hence, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A).

5.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 2(15)

All 2,878 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(15) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →