THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. SHRI ASHOK SHETTY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/118/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01023852201625 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal based on the CBDT circular regarding tax effect. The substantial question of law was kept open for adjudication in an appropriate proceeding.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order granting deduction under Section 10A/10B of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in a CBDT circular, making the appeal non-entertainable.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT circulars, and the correctness of the ITAT's decision on Section 10A/10B deductions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 10A,Section 10B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39915-DB ITA No. 118 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.118 OF 2016

BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A), ATTAVARA, C.R. BUILDING, MANGALURU - 575 001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MALPE ROAD, AADIUDUPI, AMBALAPODI PO, UDUPI - 576 103. …APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. SANMATHI E.I, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39915-DB ITA No. 118 of 2016

AND:

SHRI. ASHOK SHETTY, PROP: M/S ASHOK IMPEX, RAJ TOWERS, OPP: CITY BUS STAND, UDUPI - 576 101. PAN: ADBMPM5671P.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14/08/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1436/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39915-DB ITA No. 118 of 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sanmathi.E.I., for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri. M.Lava for respondent/assessee.

2.

The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.1436/Bang/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11.

3.

This Court, admitted the appeal on 03.10.2017 to consider the following substantial question of law:

1.

"Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 10A/10B of the Act when the assessee had failed to satisfy all the requirements under said section and as it is a case of exemptions the strict

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39915-DB ITA No. 118 of 2016

interpretation was required to be done in the case of assessee"?

4.

Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.

6.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the question of law is

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39915-DB ITA No. 118 of 2016

kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

SMJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14

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 →