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.657 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.,)

AND:

SRI. C. RAMAIAH REDDY RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY SECTOR-D, BASAVANAGAR MARATHAHALLI BANGALORE-560037. ... 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 12/08/2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.81/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED 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 ORDER DATED 12/8/2013 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.ITA NO.81/BANG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09.

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 pertains to Assessment year 2008-09. The appeal is admitted by a bench of this court vide order dated 25.06.2020 respectively on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law and not perverse in its findings in deleting the addition of long term capital gains of Rs.5,69,78,516/- made by the assessing officer?

(ii) Whether on 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.5,69,78,516/-?

(iii) Whether on 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 an 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?

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE ss