PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S THOUGHT WORKS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/948/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01051815201730 November 2018Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,K.NATARAJAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were covered by previous judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court itself. Therefore, the appeal was decided based on these precedents.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Department appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal raised substantial questions of law concerning the assessment year 2005-2006.

What were the issues?

Whether the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are covered by existing judicial pronouncements from higher courts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ON THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.948 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX-7

BMTC COMPLEX

KORAMANGALA

BENGALURU

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE-12(4)

BMTC COMPLEX

KORAMANGALA

BENGALURU ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI:JEEVAN J.NEERALGI AND

SRI:E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATES)

2 AND:

M/S THOUGHT WORKS TECHNOLOGIES (I) PRIVATE LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, ACR MANSION 147 OF F, 8TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 PAN NO.AABCT3936G ... RESPONDENT

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.31/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT 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; SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.IT(TP)A NO.31/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 2006 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

*****

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3 JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the first substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-III VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD., (2018) 93 TAXMANN.COM 33 (SC) and the second and third substantial questions of law are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU VS. SOFTBRANDS INDIA (P) LTD., (2018) 94 TAXMANN.COM 426 (KARNATAKA). Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

SD/-

SD/- JUDGE

JUDGE

*bgn/-

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 →