THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/532/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01051413201626 May 2021Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee, citing previous judgments from the Bombay High Court and its own court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order for AY 2007-08. The appeal was admitted on a substantial question of law concerning the disallowance of Rs. 3,87,19,625/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of taxes under Section 195.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the disallowance for non-deduction of taxes under Section 195 when the ingredients of the sections were satisfied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 195,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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

I.T.A. NO.532 OF 2016 BETWEEN:

1.

The Pr. Commissioner of

Income – tax, 5th Floor

BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road

Kormangala, Bengaluru-560095.

2.

The Income-Tax Officer

Ward-11(1), Present Address

Ward- 2(1)(1), 2nd Floor, BMTC

Building, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala

Bengaluru – 560 095.

... Appellants

(By Sri K V Aravind, Advocate)

AND:

M/s.Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Levbel-II, `Prestige Obelisk’ Kasturba Road, Bengaluru.

... Respondent

(By Kamal Sawhney, Advocate for M/s.Kamath & Kamath)

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 8.1.2016 PASSED IN IT (TP)A NO.675/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08-ANNEXURE-D, PRAYING TO: (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE

(ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH IN IT(TP)A NO.675/BANG/2012 DATED 8.1.2016 ANNEXURE-D CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2(1)(1), BENGALURU

THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Sri K V Aravind, learned counsel for the Revenue.

Sri Kamal Sawhney, learned counsel for the assessee.

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the assessment year 2007-2008.

2.

The appeal was admitted on 11.12.2018 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified insetting aside the disallowance of Rs.3,87,19,625/- under Sectkion 40(a)(a) for

non-deduction of taxes under Section 195 of the I.T.Act even when the ingredients of the said sections are satisfied?

When the matter was takenup today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the substantial question of law has already been answered in favour of the assessee by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT –VS- GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD., (2011) 330 ITR 175 (Bom) as well as the decision of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –VS- HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBAL SOFT LTD. reported in (2017) 87 taxmann.com 182 (Karnataka).

3.

The aforesaid submission could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue.

4.

In view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT –vs- Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.

as well as the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs- Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd., (supra), the substantial question of law 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

BKM

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →