Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ I.T.A. NO.152 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN NO.59, BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR BENGALURU-560032. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1(1), 4TH FLOOR HMT BHAVAN, NO.59, BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. ACER INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.13, 6TH FLOOR EMBASSY HEIGHTS MARGATH ROAD NEXT TO HOSMAT HOSPITAL BENGALURU-560025 PAN:BLRAO 1844D. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. SURYANARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR MS. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE)
2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14.09.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.2572/BANG/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12, PRAYING TO: (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.2572/BANG/2017 DATED 14.09.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU & ETC. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law:
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 194H are not attracted in the case of assessee with regard to payments towards supply of manpower and non- deduction of taxes on payments made to distributors towards price protection and
3 special price clearance discounts even when the assessing authority rightly held that assessee was liable to deduct tax on such activities as it attracted Section 194H of the Act?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in confirming the order of the CIT(A) canceling the order passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act by erroneously holding that the said orders are barred by limitation even though the period of limitation applicable is 7 years and not 2 years as held by the Tribunal?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) canceling the order passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act by erroneously holding that said orders are barred by limitation holding that as per law it prevailed prior to amendment to Section 201(3) by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 is considered?
4 2. For the reasons assigned by us in the judgment passed today in I.T.A.No.150/2019, it is held that first substantial question of law does not arise for consideration in this appeal. The second and third substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss