THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S GOPALAN ENTERPRISES

PDF · subscribers
ITA/233/2010HC KarnatakaKAHC01044218201029 February 2012Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

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?

Section 260-A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →