Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
I.T.A. NO.367 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE-560085.
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE-560085.
... APPELLANTS
(BY Mr. M. DILIP, A/W SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVS.)
AND:
M/S. HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD., (ERSTWHILE HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA P. LTD.,) 24, SALARPURIA ARENA HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE PAN: AAACC9862F. ... RESPONDENT (BY Ms. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADV., FOR Mr. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - -
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 30-10-2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1134/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2202-03 PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU IN
ITA NO.1134/BANG/2014 DATED:30-10-2015 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BENGALURU & ETC.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel along with Mr.M.Dilip, learned counsel for the revenue. Smt.Manasa Ananthan, learned counsel for Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent.
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 which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on 17.10.2017 on the following substantial question of law:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the disallowance of sum of Rs.5,26,17,446/- made by Assessing Authority under Section 40(a)(ia) by holding that rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be attracted if the amount is paid during the next year even when the Assessing Authority has disallowed the same as per the mandate of said section as the TDS is not remitted within the due date as prescribed under the Act which is against the provisions of the law?”
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the substantial question of law has been answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOLKATA Vs. CALCUTTA EXPORT COMPANY’ (2018) 302 CTR 201 (SC).
In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the substantial question of law framed by this Court in this
appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE