DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1212/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) by respectfully following its own order for the previous assessment year, as the revenue could not distinguish the facts. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as it was in support of the upheld order.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order holding that Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable to the assessee. The assessee filed a cross-objection in support of the CIT(A)'s order. The revenue could not point out any factual difference from the previous assessment year where a similar issue was decided by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act were applicable to the assessee's case for the relevant assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH “B”, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, C. A
For Respondent: Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR
Hearing: 01/05/2017Pronounced: 05/05/2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “B”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2012 – 13 The DCIT, Circle – 1, Vs M/s Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Bangalore No. 6, Jal Bhavan, 1st Stage, 1st Phase, BTM layout, Bangalore – 29. PAN AAATK5837F (Appellant) (Respondent) & C. O. No. 37/B/2017 in ITA No. 1212/B/2016 Assessment Year 2012 – 13 M/s Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Vs The DCIT, Circle – 1, No. 6, Jal Bhavan, Bangalore 1st Stage, 1st Phase, BTM layout, Bangalore – 29. PAN AAATK5837F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Madhusudhan, C. A. Revenue by Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR Date of hearing 01/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 05/05/2017 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, AM.

This appeal is filed by the revenue and the C.O. is filed by the assessee and these are directed against the order dated 31.03.2016 for A. Y. 2012 – 13 passed by CIT (A), LTU, Bangalore.

ITA No. 1212/B/2016 & CO No. 37/B/2017 2

2.

The ground raised

by the revenue is as under:- “Whether, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) is right in holding that the provisions of section 2. (15) are not applicable in the assessee’s case.”

3.

In the C. O., the grounds raised

by the assessee are in support of the order of CIT (A).

4. Learned DR of the revenue supported the assessment order and learned AR of the assessee supported the order of CIT (A). He also submitted that learned CIT (A) has followed the tribunal order in assessee’s own case for A. Y.

2011 – 12 in dated 04.09.2015, copy available on pages 3 to 27 of the paper book. At this juncture, a query was raised by the bench asking the learned DR of the revenue to point out any difference in facts in the present year and in A. Y. 2011 – 12. In reply, learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts.

5. We have considered the rival submissions. Since, learned CIT (A) has followed the tribunal order in assessee’s own case for A. Y. 2011 – 12 and in spite of query, the learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts, we find no reason to take a contrary view. Hence, by respectfully following the tribunal order in assessee’s own case in A. Y. 2011 -12, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A). Regarding C.O. of the assessee, we hold that since, it is merely in support of the order of CIT (A) and we are ITA No. 1212/B/2016 & CO No. 37/B/2017 3 upholding his order, the C. O. does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and C.O. of the assessee are dismissed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)

More judgments on Section 2(15)

All 2,878 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(15) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →