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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/186/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01045513201114 November 2018Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,K.NATARAJAN4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that all four substantial questions of law were covered by various Supreme Court and High Court judgments. These judgments were in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order concerning assessment year 2002-03. The appeal was admitted to consider four substantial questions of law.

What were the issues?

The core issue was whether the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were to be decided in favour of the assessee or the Revenue, based on existing judicial 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(4)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.186 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 SHARATH S, ADVOCATES)

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.673/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03, 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 ITA NO.673/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 question 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 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.

5.

The fourth substantial question of law is covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBAL SOFT LTD., reported in [2018] 403 ITR 453(KARNATAKA) (FB). Hence, the fourth substantial

4 question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 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 →