Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
I.T.A. NO.81 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
BANGALORE-III, BANGALORE.
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(3), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,)
AND:
M/S. SAINT GOBAIN CRYSTAL AND DETECTORS (I) LTD., SY. NO.171/2, MARUTHI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE HOODI RAJAPALYA, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560048. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANKUR PAI, FOR SRI. K.R. VASUDEVAA, ADV.,) - - -
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14-09-2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.185/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PRAYING TO:
I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE PASSED IN ITA NO.185/BANG/2012 DATED 14-09-2012 AND ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-III, BANGALORE DATED 04-11- 2011 IN APPEAL NO.157/C-12(3)/CIT(A)-III/BNG/2010-11.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Ankur Pai, learned counsel for the assessee.
This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.06.2013 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing activities while the assessee is only polishing the crystals and
thereafter assembling the glass and crystals. The process undertaken by the assessee would not bring anything new into existence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union India Vs. Delhi Cloth & General Merchants Co. Ltd. reported in 1963 AIR SC 791 has differentiated processing from manufacturing?”
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the substantial question of law has been answered by a Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.01.2015 passed in ITA No.351/2009 c/w ITA No.352/2009.
In view of the aforesaid submissions and for the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE