PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6 vs. M/S SAPA EXTRUSION INDIA PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/48/2019HC KarnatakaKAHC01039162201922 October 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal had already been decided against the revenue in a previous judgment. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against an ITAT order that allowed depreciation on non-competition fees paid by the assessee. The assessing authority had disallowed this fee. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing depreciation on non-competition fees, and whether the assessee acquired an intangible asset for which depreciation is allowable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 32(1)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

I.T.A. NO.48 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 6, BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU.

2.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6 (1)(1), BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU. ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADV.)

AND

M/S SAPA EXTRUSION INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.54, VIRGO NAGAR, OLD MADRAS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 049. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI BALARAM R.RAO, ADV.)

- - -

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 14/09/2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.1662/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. (a) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED:14/09/2018 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA NO.1662/BANG/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL.

THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Mr. E. I. Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue.

Mr. Balram R. Rao, learned counsel for the assessee.

2.

This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment

Year 2014-15. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.07.2019 on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessing authority is not right in disallowing non- competition fee of Rs.28 crores paid by assessee to M/s. Alufit India Pvt. Ltd. as per agreement dated 9.5.2011 by holding that the assessee had acquired intangible asset by relying upon the decision in the case of assessee itself and also in the case of CIT v/s. Ingersol Rand International Limited?

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in allowing depreciation on non-compete fee even though the assessing authority rightly held that depreciation on non- compete fee is not allowable as per Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act?”

3.

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaid substantial questions of law have been answered against the revenue by this Court vide Judgment dated 10.03.2020 passed in ITA No.680/2019.

4.

The aforesaid submission could not be disputed by learned counsel for the revenue.

5.

For the reasons assigned by a Bench of this Court in the Judgment dated 10.03.2020 passed in ITA No.680/2019, we hold that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

dn/- CT-HR

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →