THE DIRECTOR (COMMISSIONER) OF INCOME TAX vs. CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS & MANAGEMENT

PDF · subscribers
ITA/531/2008HC KarnatakaKAHC01031168200803 September 2012Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that an appeal under Section 248 was maintainable, even without adjudication by authorities under Section 195(3), (4), and (5) read with Section 200. This decision was based on a High Court precedent.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Department appealed a decision by the ITAT regarding the maintainability of an appeal under Section 248 of the Income Tax Act. The appeal concerned the assessment year 2006-07.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether an appeal under Section 248 of the Act is maintainable when there has been no specific adjudication by the authorities under Section 195(3), (4), and (5) read with Section 200.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 248,Section 195,Section 200

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 BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA NO.531 OF 2008 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIRECTOR (COMMISSIONER) OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NO.14/3, 6TH FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NO.14/3, 6TH FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI:K V ARAVIND, ADV) AND: CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NO.38/1, NAGANATHAPURA SINGASANDRA POST BANGALORE – 560 100 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI:K S RAMABHADRAN, ADV)

2 THIS ITA FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF IT ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14.12.2007 PASSED IN ITA NO.595 TO 597/BANG/2007, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.595 TO 597/2007 DATED 14.12.2007 CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD –1(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING BEFORE THE COURT THIS DAY, K SREEDHAR RAO, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:- J U D G M E N T The following substantial question of law is framed for consideration: “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that an appeal was maintainable under Section 248 of the Act, even though there was no adjudication by the Authorities under the Act in accordance with Section 195(3), (4) and (5) read with Section 200 of the Act?” 2. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Jindal Thermal Power Company Limited (earlier known as Jindal Tractebel Power Co. Ltd.,) Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) reported in (2010)

3 321 ITR 31 (Karn) DD 16.03.2009, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *bgn/-

More judgments on Section 248

All 173 judgments and leading authorities on Section 248 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →