PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S G7 INVESTMENTS PVT LTD

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.592 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

(CENTRAL), C.R. BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), C.R. BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. E.R. INDRAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W MR. SANMATHI E.I. ADV.,) AND: M/S. G7 INVESTMENTS PVT LTD., NO.86, GOKUL TOWERS M.S. RAMAIAH ROAD BANGALORE-560024 PAN: AABCG0490P. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 15.02.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1647/BANG/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12, PRAYING TO 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 AND SET

2 ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 15-02-2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'B' BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.ITA NO.1647/BANG/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.R.Indrakumar, learned Senior counsel along with Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Aravind V.Chavan, learned counsel for the assessee. 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. 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 05.11.2018 on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the shares received against the less consideration in comparison to fair market value are not liable to tax as income under Section 56(2)(vi-a)(ii) of the Act?"

3 2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the substantial question of law involved in this appeal has already been answered by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2020 passed in ITA No.501/2016 against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the revenue was unable to dispute the statement made by the assessee. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission and for the reasons assigned in the judgment dated 15.12.2020 passed in ITA No.501/2016, 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 fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV