COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. WIPRO GE HEALTH CARE PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/435/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01082316201112 June 2020Bench: 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 by a previous bench of the High Court. The previous decision affirmed the ITAT's decision.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against an ITAT order that granted relief to the assessee on re-allocation of common expenses. The revenue argued that the ITAT's order was based on a previous tribunal order that the revenue had challenged in the High Court.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT was justified in re-allocating common expenses based on a previous order that was under challenge by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JUNE 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

I.T.A. NO.435 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

TAX, C.R.BUILDINGS

QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE – 560 001

2.

THE DEPUTY

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIRCLE-12(5)

BANGALORE

... APPELLANTS

(By Sri.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)

AND:

M/s. WIPRO GE HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. PLOT NO.3, 3A & 4 KADUGODI INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE

... RESPONDENT

(By Smt.S.R.ANURADHA, ADV.) - - -

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29.07.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.1433/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 29.07.2011 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1433/BANG/2010 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL, 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.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue has entered appearance through video conference. Smt.S.R.Anuradha, learned counsel for the respondent has entered appearance through video conference.

2.

This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue which pertains to Assessment year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.06.2012 on the following substantial question of law:

a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is justified in law in giving relief to the assessee on re-allocation of common expenses between 10A and non 10A units made by the assessing officer based on the order of the tribunal dated 18.11.2005 in the assessee’s case for the Assessment year 1999-2000 without appreciating the fact that the said order of the tribunal was not accepted by the revenue and was assailed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka?

3.

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted the aforesaid question of law has already been answered by a Bench of this Court in ITA No.2834/2005 c/w ITA No.776/2006 vide order dated 05.11.2013. It is further pointed out that the decision passed by the Tribunal has been affirmed by a Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision.

4.

In view of the aforesaid submission and for the reasons assigned in the order dated 05.11.2013, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →