THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S SAGAR CHEMICALS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/199/2008HC KarnatakaKAHC01017923200827 August 2012Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a similar question of law had been answered against the revenue in a previous case. Therefore, the current appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order concerning a block period. The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the levy of surcharge.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue is entitled to levy surcharge under Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 113

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.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA No.199/2008 BETWEEN : 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV) AND: M/S SAGAR CHEMICALS NO.26/8, 1ST CROSS, 10TH MAIN, SHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.U.S.YOGESH KUMAR, ADV) ITA FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF

2 ORDER DATED 12-10-2007 PASSED IN ITA NO. 90/BNG/2006, FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1/4/1996 TO 9/5/2002, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO. 90/BNG/2006,DATED 12-10-2007 CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -(2), BANGALORE.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SREEDHAR RAO J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Sri.U.S.Yogeshkumar, takes notice for respondents. The substantial questions of law at paragraph 4 and 5 of the appeal memo are taken up for consideration. This Court in ITA No.196/2008 disposed off on 6-7-2010 has answered the second question of law against the revenue. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V/S SURESH GUPTA reported in 297 ITR 322 held that the revenue is entitled to

3 levy surcharge under Section 113 of the Act and such levy has been upheld. Since the second question of law is answered against the revenue, the first question of law is not necessary to be answered. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-*

More judgments on Section 113

All 50 judgments and leading authorities on Section 113 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →