M/S. SUBEX LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the substantial question of law was covered by its previous judgment in the assessee's own case. This judgment was in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s. Subex Limited, filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. The appeal was admitted on a substantial question of law.
What were the issues?
Whether the substantial question of law raised in the appeal is covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in the assessee's own case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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.97 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
M/s. SUBEX LIMITED ADARSH TECH PARK, OUTER RING ROAD, DEVARABISANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 037, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI SUBASH MENON, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SON OF P.JAYAPALA MENON). ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI TATA KRISHNA & SRI S SHARATH, ADVOCATES FOR SRI K.K.CHYTHANYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WARD – 12(3), BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)
2 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDE SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF THE 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, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT IN ITA NO.677/BANG/2010 DATED 31.01.2011 TO THE EXTENT ADVERSE TO THE APPELLANT.
***** THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant’s counsel submits that the substantial question of law on which the appeal has been admitted is covered by the Judgment of this Court in the assessee’s own case (M/s.SUBEX LIMITED., ADARSH TECH PARK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), BENGALURU), reported in 2015-TIOL-163-HC-KAR-IT). 2. Following the said Judgment, the substantial question of law is held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in terms of the aforesaid order. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
3 Sri E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel is permitted to file memo of appearance on behalf of respondent within four weeks..
SD/- SD/- JUDGE
JUDGE
rsk/-
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026