M/S BANGALORE ELECTRICITY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ITA NO.543/2019 C/W ITA NO.535/2019, ITA NO.633/2019

IN ITA NO.543/2019:

BETWEEN:

M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED SHIVAJINAGAR DIVISION QUEEN’S ROAD, NEAR CSI HOSPITAL ‘C’ STATION, BANGALORE-560 001 PAN:AACCJ2951N. …APPELLANT

(BY SMT. C. PADMAVATHY, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

AND:

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE-1(1), HMT BHAVAN BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE-560 032. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27/03/2019, PASSED IN ITA NO.613, 614, 615 AND 616/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16 RESPECTIVELY AND PRAYING TO (A) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE

APPELLANT (B) DIRECT THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES NOT ADJUDICATED BY THEM AND TO THAT EXTENT HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS BAD IN LAW, IN THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU ‘A’ BENCH IN ITA NO.613, 614, 615 AND 616/BANG/2018 DATED 27/03/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16 RESPECTIVELY, ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT CERTAIN OTHER ISSUES WERE NOT ACADEMIC AND ETC.

IN ITA NO.535/2019:

BETWEEN:

M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED SOUTH CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 PAN:AACCJ2951N. …APPELLANT

(BY SMT. C. PADMAVATHY, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

AND:

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE-1(1), HMT BHAVAN BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE-560 032. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27/03/2019, PASSED IN ITA NO.605, 606, 607 AND 608/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16 RESPECTIVELY AND PRAYING TO (A) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT (B) DIRECT THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES NOT ADJUDICATED BY THEM AND TO THAT EXTENT HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS BAD IN LAW, IN THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU ‘A’ BENCH IN ITA NO.605, 606, 607 AND 608/BANG/2018 DATED 27/03/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16 RESPECTIVELY, ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT CERTAIN OTHER ISSUES WERE NOT ACADEMIC AND ETC.

IN ITA NO.633/2019:

BETWEEN:

M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED CENTRAL STORES DIVISION RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 PAN:AACCJ2951N. …APPELLANT

(BY SMT. C. PADMAVATHY, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

AND:

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE-1(1), HMT BHAVAN BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE-560 032. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10/05/2019, PASSED IN ITA NO.651, 652, 653 AND 654/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16 RESPECTIVELY AND PRAYING TO (A) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT (B) DIRECT THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES NOT ADJUDICATED BY THEM AND TO THAT EXTENT HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS BAD IN LAW, IN THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU ‘C’ BENCH IN ITA NO.651, 652, 653 AND 654/BANG/2018 DATED 10/05/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16 RESPECTIVELY, ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS NOT DECIDED, DE NOVO AND ETC.

THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Smt. C. Padmavathy, Deputy General Manager of BESCOM (CT & GST), who appeared in person has fairly stated before this Court that the appellant-Company has approached the Department under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE TL