COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.176 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

(EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-17(1)

BANGALORE.

... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S. KARNATAKA WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD NO.6, JAL BHAVAN, FIRST STAGE BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE AAATK 5837F. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADV., FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 04-09-2015

2 PASSED IN ITA NO.283/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, PRAYING TO: 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 ORDERS DATED 04-09-2015 THE ITAT, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU, IN ITA NO.283/BANG/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMD FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 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 conferencing. Smt.Jinitha Chatterjee, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A 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 2011-12. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.11.2017 to consider the following substantial question of law:

3 "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicability in the assessee's case, while in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it may be noted that as per the amended provisions of section 2(15), once the assessing officer has made a finding that the assessee is engaged in the activities which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business, then, the objects of the assessee are not considered as charitable purpose." 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaid substantial question of law has already been answered by this Court by judgment dated 30.09.2020 passed in ITA No.205/2016 against the revenue. The aforesaid submission could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 4. For the reasons assigned by us in judgment dated 30.09.2020 passed in ITA No.205/2016, the

4 substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV