COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S TRILOGY E-BUSINESS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/430/2014HC KarnatakaKAHC01036788201413 March 2015Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and held that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed, but with a condition for consequential orders if the Revenue succeeds before the Apex Court.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The ITAT had followed a previous High Court decision in favor of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT's decision, following a precedent, was legally sound and whether a substantial question of law arose for the High Court's consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 260(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2015

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

ITA NO.430 OF 2014

BETWEEN

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III

REVENUE BUILDINGS

QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE-560 001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12(4), BANGALORE.

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. E I SANMATHI, ADV.,)

AND

M/S TRILOGY E-BUSINESS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LTD. NO.1/2, LALITHA NILAYA 4TH CROSS, RMV IIND STAGE BHOOPASANDRA BANGALORE-560 094.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S SHARATH, ADV. FOR SRI K.K.CHYTHANYA, ADV.,)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 09/05/2014 PASSED IN M.P.NO.75/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008

PRAYING TO I) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT II) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 09.05.2014 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.75/BANG/2013 (IN ITA 1054/B/2011) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.S.Sharath, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri K.K.Chythanya, for the respondent.

2.

The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.

3.

The Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax –vs- Tata Elxsi Ltd., reported in 349 ITR 98 (Kar) and has extended the benefit to the assessee.

4.

In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

5.

However, it is submitted that the aforesaid judgment of this Court is under challenge before the Apex Court. In the event of Revenue succeeding in the said appeal before the Apex Court, the Assessing Authority shall pass consequential order under Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →