Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE,
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.185 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
C.R. BUILDING,
QUEENS ROAD,
BANGALORE.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE – 11(4),
C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,
BANGALORE.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. iGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. NO.158-162(P) & 165(P)-170(P), EPIP, PHASE II, WHITEFILED, BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE)
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, IN I.T.A. NO.624/BANG/2009, DATED 18-12-2009, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it would not be necessary to go into the merits since the substantial questions of law could be answered on a short issue.
So far as the first question of law is concerned, he submits that it is covered by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in I.T.A. Nos.248 and 249/Bang/2007 dated 27-11-2007. In
view of the same, the first substantial question of law would not arise for consideration.
So far as the second question of law is concerned, in paragraph No.4.4, the Tribunal in its order held that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in I.T.A No.2291/2004 dated 11-8-2006 and I.T.A Nos.391 and 392 of 2007 dated 30-10-2007. The appellants’ counsel submits that the reliance placed therein is incorrect since the issue involved is quite different than the issue involved in the present case.
The said fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
Under the circumstances, it is just and proper to direct the Tribunal to re-consider the issue so far as second issue is concerned.
Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the Tribunal is partly set aside, in so far as the second issue is concerned, the Tribunal to consider the issue afresh. All contentions on the issue are kept open.
SD/-
SD/- JUDGE
JUDGE
kvk