COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHRIRAM CHITS

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.550 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

TAX, C.R. BUILDINGS,

QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE

12(3), BANGALORE.

... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E.I. SAMATHI, ADV.,) AND:

M/S SHRIRAM CHITS (KARNATAKA)

PVT. LTD., NO.259/31,

IST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS,

WILSON GARDEN,

BANGALORE- 560 027. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.V. SHESHACHALA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. BALRAM R.RAO., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT) - - -

2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31.05.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.1224/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, PRAYING TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2011 PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALOREIN ITA NO.1224/BANG/2010 AND CONFIRM THE ORDERR PASSED BY THE JT. COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL 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 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 09.06.2016 on the following substantial questions of law:

3 a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the bid loss without appreciating the fact that such Bid Loss pertains to period beyond the accounting period relevant to the assessment year under consideration and the same should not have been allowed for the sake of consistency'' b) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in placing reliance on its own order in the case of DHFL Vysya Housing Finance P Ltd., (DVHF) ITA No.1416/bang/2010 for Ay 96-97 dated:11.01.2013 and holding that the reopening under section 147 is bad in law without appreciating the fact that the department has not accepted the relied upon decision and the same has also been challenged before this Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in ITA No.244/2013?''