What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the questions raised in the appeal were covered by a previous Division Bench judgment. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, answering the questions against the assessee.

The appellant, ING Vysya Bank Limited, filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka with a delay of five days. The delay was condoned by the court. The appeal was admitted for examination.

What were the issues?

Whether the issues raised in the appeal are covered by existing High Court judgments. The primary issue was the condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Ing Vysya Bank Limited vs The Deputy Director of Income Tax | Karnataka High Court 2012

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR Income Tax Appeal No.436 of 2011 BETWEEN: ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED ING VYSYA HOUSE, 22, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI SHAILENDRA BHANDARI S/O DILIP BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS … APPELLANT [BY SRI K S RAMABHADRAN, ADV.] AND: THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1) BANGALORE. … RESPONDENT [BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.] THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 05.08.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO. 160/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2 J U D G M E N T There is a delay of five days in preferring this appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Notice had been issued to the respondent – revenue represented by Sri. K V Aravind, learned standing counsel for the revenue. 3. We have heard Sri. K S Ramabhadran, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. K V Aravind, learned standing counsel for the respondent - revenue. 4. Accepting the explanation offered in the affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay, five days delay in preferring this appeal is condoned, IA No.I/2012 is allowed and appeal is admitted for examination. 5. Sri. K S Ramabhadran, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. K V Aravind, learned standing counsel for the respondent – revenue submit that the questions raised

3 by the appellant in this appeal is now covered by the division Bench of this court rendered in the case of ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., & OTHERS’ reported in [2011] 245 CTR [Kar] 481 . 6. In this view of the legal position, the appeal is dismissed answering the question raised in the appeal against the assessee. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE AN/-

ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

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