PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs SRI C RAMAIAH REDDY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

I.T.A. NO.406 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE 560001.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (2) BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV., FOR SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,)

AND:

SRI. C. RAMAIAH REDDY NO. 19-22, SANDEEP NILAYAM 1ST CROSS, SECTOR-C, VIBHUTHIPURA RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY, BASAVANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 037.

... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. ADV., A/W SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) - - -

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10/04/2015 PASSED IN ITA

NO.1778/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (I) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTIONS 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 10/4/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.ITA NO.1778/BANG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL.

THIS ITA 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) have been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of 2011-12. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this 01.03.2016 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 45(2) and 49(1) of the Income Tax Act are not applicable in respect to the property received by assessee on partial partition of Hindu Undivided

Family and thereby deleting the long term capital gain of Rs.13,16,08,600/- and short term capital gain of Rs.77,29,09,600/- for Assessment year 2011-12 and long term capital gain of Rs.27,95,22,234/- and short term capital gain of RS.7,41,04,606/- for Assessment year 2012-13?

(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the cost of the properties received in partial partition of HUF to be adopted as claimed by the assessee under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as deduction while computing the income under the head ‘Profit and Gains of Business or Profession’, ignoring the fact that the assessee did not incur any cost on such properties other than the cost incurred by the HUF?

It is agreed by learned counsel for the parties that the answer to the substantial questions of law involved in the instant case would depend on the decision of this court which would be rendered in I.T.A.No.318/2012. Since, by way of judgment passed today in ITA No.318/2012, it has been held that no substantial questions of law arise for determination and the appeal has already been dismissed. Therefore, for the reasons assigned in the aforesaid appeal, this appeal is also dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE ss

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI C RAMAIAH REDDY