THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S GOPALAN ENTERPRISES
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court formulated substantial questions of law and allowed the appeal. The ITAT's order was set aside, implying the assessee's order was also overturned.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Department appealed against an ITAT order that confirmed the assessee's order. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the High Court should formulate substantial questions of law and set aside the ITAT's order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
S IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH INCOME-TAX APPEAL NO.233 OF 2010 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. 2. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward—1(4), Bangalore. ...Appeliants (By Shri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) AND: MIs. Gopalan Enterprises NO.5, Richmond Road Bangalore — 560 025 ...Respondent This ITA is flied under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 10.02.2010 passed in ITA No.1024/Bang/2009, for the Assessment Year 2005-06 praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein; (ii) allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.1024/Bang/2009 dated 10.02.2010 conforming the
CD CD rt CD a t• rt Di CD C DC (f) Di DCCDCO a CD C a o CD CD C 3 CD D rP — 0 CD a - n -, - a < 0 Di j — C >c — a 3 3 CDai’ CD 3 g a3H CDCD H a — Dl• tO CL CD :i> Ni CD H — H Dirt. a CD 0 0 fl a Dl CM - CM CD tj CD —h H Ct 0 CD , H (ft Di a 0 -‘ Di 9CDCDLa.CM;CD CDOaflt g a> Ca (C — a CD rt CM CL CD CD fl rt Dl CD Q H rt CL o 0 CM a 0 = C) CDCD h; CD CD a < > a CD h CD — CDO E rt 3 a g g a H CM Q $ Q CD ft) CD CM 0 CD — : trCD CD $ a ! 3 cg CD C cu El DC , c CD 0 Ha C) CM CD 0 CD Dl H a° H. gaCD 3;Doo x3: ll Di CD < CD , rtDC H3 CD; f) 9 $: a CL - CD Dl N CM: -t a n H H 03 Ct $0 a o CD CD H c CM rt CD rt CD : “> a -j = CD C CM CD CD CD DC ,— CD • Cu C CD CL a a* -C r-t 3 CD 0 Cl 0 — —% CD CD Cl a —. Lb Di 0 — Di — CD CM rHCM ECD CflCD $ aCD Haa CD CD vt $ CD rt H CD CD CD 0 n 9 CL 0 — rt Di H 0 CD fl. — C CD rt 0 0 CD 0 C 0 CD 0 CM a C rt CD — 3 DC CD 3. CD CD CD rt CD -) CT CD C CD a n -r CM - Cu . a -‘ CD C CM — 0 rt — CD CD H CD - CD Di CM rr C 0 C a -‘ CD H t CM CD CD -, Di t Dl — —. uirt CM 0 —. — Cl CM CD N 0 CL CDa CD -C CD CD) t) CD (J CM CM CD Di DCCD CD CD - H. $ DC 3CC) D Ho CL rt ftp CM CD -C a i—’: CM — a H a 3. —- Dl CD a 5 CD rt CD CD rt rt CD CD 0 CD CD 0 C DC -h -
a n z CM C) N) :3 — a a 0 0 (1) rr 9 a 0 a a a 0 a - U, a io U, a -‘ a a ‘ a a a th P 0 0 th U, -r 0 a 0 0 0< c a 9-9 U, tO n a a o 0 . a a rt 0 ‘ - E -9- a c 9 a a 9 0 to — 0 a 0 0 a 0 9- a to — rt — —. a ‘:3 a a a a 0 a a — :3 0 — a a 0 C Zr 0 a o a a a a 0 — o 0 U, - a 0 a a 9- -t — a r a Z3 9- a a C)) 9 a , 0 - a 0 a a : o 0 U, — a a a - a a rt U, a a a U, —‘ — a a 0 —‘ < a - a C):) a 0 ti Q. a g. a a a rt a Grt 9 9 9. 9 a 9. 2 U, 9> a9. a 9 a - :3 -, N) o a a 0 a cc 9. a 9- > Q U, . 0 Q: U, 3 —h
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026