PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. M/S. RAJEEV GANDHI RURAL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted the submission of the Revenue's counsel and disposed of the appeal accordingly. The appeal was decided based on the concession made by the appellant.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court challenging an ITAT order. The Revenue's counsel conceded that the first substantial question of law did not arise for consideration.
What were the issues?
Whether the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were valid and required consideration by the High Court.
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 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BELLUNKE
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.573 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU -560 095.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1)(1) BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI: SANMATHI E I, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. RAJEEV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED 4TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009 PAN: AABCR5689N.
... RESPONDENT
2 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 08/03/2017 PASSED IN C.O.NO.56/BANG/2016 IN ITA NO.204/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 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 AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 08/03/2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN C.O.NO.56/BANG/2016 IN ITA NO.204/BANG/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 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 ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The learned Counsel for the appellants submit that the first substantial question of law does not arise for consideration. Hence, he restricts his submission only so far as substantial question of law Nos.2 and 3. He contends that the second and third substantial questions of law are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case
3 of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VS. KARNATAKA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE CORPORATION in ITA No.2418 of 2005 disposed off on 21.02.2006 reported in 284 ITR page 582. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be disposed off.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is placed on record.
The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
SD/- SD/- JUDGE
JUDGE
*bgn/-
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026