THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RAVINDRA UPADRASHTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/108/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC01013451202006 February 2023Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, answering the substantial question of law in favor of the assessee. The decision was based on a previous ruling by the same court in a similar case.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54F, despite the investment being made outside India. The High Court admitted the appeal to consider a substantial question of law.

What were the issues?

Whether an investment made outside India satisfies the conditions for deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, which mandates investment within India.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU IN

- 1 -

ITA No. 108 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 7TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095

2.

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1) 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095 …APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI. M. DILIP, STANDING COUNSEL FOR SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL)

AND:

SHRI RAVINDRA UPADRASHTA IBM INDIA PVT LTD. EMBASSY GOLF LINKS RING ROAD,KORAAMANGALA OFF INDIRANAGAR BENGLAURU - 560 071 PAN: AAUPU 8848A …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. N. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. B.G. CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

ITA No. 108 of 2020

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 28/08/2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.2342/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 2342/BANG/2018 DATED: 28/08/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 ANNEXURE-C CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal by the Revenue challenging the order dated 28.08.2019 in ITA No.2342/Bang/2018 passed by the ITAT1, "B" Bench, Bangalore, has been admitted to consider following question of law:

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance made under section 54F of the Act by holding that the investment made by assessee outside India satisfies the condition for seeking deduction under section 54F even

1 Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench

- 3 -

ITA No. 108 of 2020

though the conditions for claiming exemption under section 54F is not satisfied by the assessee since assessee has to make investment within geographical limits of India and not outside India as prescribed in said section which is a mandatory condition?”

2.

Heard Shri. M. Dilip, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-Revenue and Shri. N. Anand, learned Advocate for the respondent-Assessee.

3.

At the outset, Shri Anand submits that issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Mr.Vinay Mishra2 holding the question of law in assessee’s favour.

4.

The said submission is not disputed by Shri Dilip, in his usual fairness.

5.

In view of the above, the following: ORDER

(i) Appeal is dismissed;

2 ITA No.75/2013 DD 31.08.2020

- 4 -

ITA No. 108 of 2020

(ii) The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →