COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. V. DINESH

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.283 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-III

C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE 6(1), C.R. BUILDINGS

QUEEN'S ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.R. INDRAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: SHRI. V. DINESH REDDY (HUF) NO.44/4, FAIR FIELD LAYOUT RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE. PAN:AABHV0511L. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK A. KULKARNI, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14.02.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.712/BANG/2013 AND C.O. NO.3/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO:

2 (i) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. (ii) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 14.02.2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA NO.712/BANG/2013 AND C.O. NO.3/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT 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. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2014 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 transfer of shares of NCSPL to Godrej Group is not liable to LTCG tax in the hands of the share holders when it is very clear that the first agreement for sale of shares was entered and subsequently series of transactions were

3 artificially created to avoid tax using closely held defunct firm and companies to route the transaction?". 2. For the reasons assigned by us in the judgment passed today in I.T.A.No.291/13, the substantial question of law framed by a bench of this court is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss