COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/184/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01045509201114 November 2018Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,K.NATARAJAN3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the first three substantial questions of law were covered by previous Supreme Court and High Court judgments. These questions were answered in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. The appeal was admitted to consider four substantial questions of law.

What were the issues?

The key issues revolved around substantial questions of law concerning tax treatment, which were decided based on established legal precedents.

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(3)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 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.184 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III REVENUE, BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12(3), BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S SUBEX LIMITED UNIT-1, ADARSH TECH PARK, OUTER RING ROAD, DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 037. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI TATA KRISHNA & SRI S SHARATH, ADVOCATES)

2 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31.01.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.677/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN; SET ASIDE THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.01.2011 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.677/BANG/2010. *****

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

JUDGMENT

The appeal was admitted to consider four substantial questions of law.

2.

So far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, the same is covered by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL – III vs. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD., reported in [2018] 93 TAXMANN.COM 33 (SC). Hence, the first substantial question of law is held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

3.

The second substantial question of law is covered by the Judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER

3 OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. KHESHMA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED., reported in [2016] 381 ITR 435(KARNATAKA). Hence, the second substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in terms of the aforesaid Judgment.

4.

The third substantial question of law is covered by the Judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANOTHER vs. YOKOGOWA INDIA LTD., reported in (2017) 391 ITR 274 (SC). Following the said Judgment, the third question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No.4 has become infructuous. The substantial questions of law are accordingly answered.

The appeal is disposed off.

SD/- SD/- JUDGE

JUDGE

Rsk/-

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 →