What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial question of law was answered in favor of the revenue based on a prior judgment. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders only after the Supreme Court disposes of the related SLP.

The assessee sought a deduction of Rs. 2,50,18,816/-. The High Court noted that the substantial question of law was covered by a previous judgment of the same court, which was in favor of the revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the substantial question of law raised in the appeal is covered by a previous High Court judgment, and if so, what are the consequential directions to the Assessing Officer.

M/S Prestige Estates vs The Deputy Commissioner | Karnataka High Court 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

ITA NO.302/2013

BETWEEN

M/s.Prestige Estates Projects (P) Ltd., The Falcon House, No.1 Main, Guard Cross Road, Bangalore – 560 001.

….Appellant

(By Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Advocate)

AND:

The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle – 1 (1), Bangalore.

….Respondent

(By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate)

+++++

This ITA filed under Sec.260-A of I.T.Act, 1961, arising out of Order dated 07/02/2013 passed in

ITA.No.572/Bang/2012, for the Assessment Year 2008-09, praying this Hon’ble Court to: i. formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein. ii. Set aside the order of the ITAT in ITA No.572/Bang/2012 dated 07/02/2013 and direct the allowance of Rs.2,50,18,816/- as a deduction in the computation of the income under the Act.

This appeal coming on for Admission this day, DILIP B. BHOSALE J., delivered the following:

P.C.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly states that the substantial question of law raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the order dated 17-11-2009 passed by this court in ITA No.105/2009 (M/s.Prestige Estates Projects (P) Ltd. V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax). He further submits that the said judgment dated 17-11-2009 has been carried by the assessee to the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.7721/2010. The Supreme Court vide its

order dated 12-3-2012 has granted leave and expedited hearing of the appeal. However, stay has been refused. In the circumstances, he prayed for disposing of this appeal with direction to the Assessing Officer to pass consequential order only after disposal of the SLP (Civil Appeal) by the Supreme Court.

It is not in dispute that the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal stands answered by the judgment of this court in ITA No.105/2009. In view of the judgment of this court in ITA No.105/2009, the substantial question of law raised in the instant appeal stands answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

We, accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to pass consequential orders, as contemplated by Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only after the Supreme Court finally dispose of the SLP arising from the judgment of this court in ITA No.105/2009. In

other words, till then, the Assessing Officer shall keep the matter pending for passing the consequential orders. However, this order shall not preclude the Assessing Officer from collecting tax if any, due from the assessee, if not already collected.

With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

mpk/-*

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments