THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ADECCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1053/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01047873201729 June 2021Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial question of law framed in the appeal had already been answered in favour of the assessee by its previous judgments. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that confirmed an order of the Appellate Commissioner, which in turn had set aside an addition made by the Deputy Commissioner. The addition pertained to disallowance under Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the addition made under Section 2(24)(x) r/w/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, following a High Court decision, despite the ingredients of the provision being satisfied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(24)(x),Section 36(1)(va),Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ITA NO.1053 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND:

M/S. ADECCO INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.2, SAI DEEP, SHRINIDHI NAL, WIND TUNNEL ROAD, MURGESH PALYA, BENGALURU. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI THOMAS VELLAPALLY, ADVOCATE)

2 - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28.07.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1952/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, PRAYING TO: (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1952/BANG/2016 DATED 28.07.2017 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU. TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Thomas Vellapally, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in ITA No.1952/Bang/2016.

3 3. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2013-2014. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 06.02.2018 on the following substantial question of law: "1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the addition made under Section 2(24)(x) r/w/s 36(1) (va) of the Act disallowed Rs.50,04,40,313/- by following the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of M/s.Essae Teraoke Pvt. Ltd. even when the ingredients of said provision are satisfied in case of assessee ignoring the decision of Gujurath High Court in case of Gujurath State Road Transport Corporation (reported in 2012 (Vol.41) Taxman.Com 100) ?"

4.

The matter is taken up today. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the substantial question of law involved in this appeal has already been answered in favour of the assessee by this Court vide judgments dated 4.02.2014 in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. SABARI ENTERPRISES reported in [2008] 298 ITR 141 (KARNATAKA) and in the case of ESSAE TERAOKA (P.) LTD. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

4 OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-11(3) reported in [2014] 43 TAXMANN.COM 33 (KARNATAKA) .

5.

The aforesaid submission has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue.

6.

In view of submission and the for the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgments the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and stands dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE HR

More judgments on Section 2(24)(x)

All 2,270 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(24)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →