COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SAMI LABS LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/111/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01015684201317 December 2013Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no justification to entertain the Revenue's appeal as the assessee was entitled to the benefit based on a prior ruling. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the Tribunal's order which allowed the assessee's claim for cultivation expenses as business expenditure. The Tribunal had relied on a previous judgment of the High Court concerning the same assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal's decision to allow cultivation expenses as business expenditure, based on a previous High Court judgment, was appealable by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 5 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013 P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR A N D THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.111 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(3), SPECIAL RANGE – II, BANGALORE.

... APPELLANTS

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

AND:

M/S. SAMI LABS LIMITED, 19/1 & 19/2, 1 MAIN, II PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BANGALORE-99

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI KASHINATH KALMATH FOR SRI R. RAMAMURTHY, ADV.)

- 2 - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28/09/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.24/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, PRAYS THIS HON'BLE COURT TO:

I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN,

II. SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28/09/2012 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.24/BANG/2012.

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, N. KUMAR, J.,

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue and allowing the assessee’s claim of cultivation expenses amounting to Rs.86.67 lakhs for the assessment year 2004 – 05 as business expenditure, relying on the judgment of this Court in ITA No.207/2011 in the case of the assessee himself. Therefore, we do not see any justification to entertain this appeal as the respondent is entitled to the

- 3 - said benefit. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration and therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

nvj

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →