THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK

PDF · subscribers
ITA/324/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01032530201722 November 2017Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY (AG.CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as the second substantial question of law was already decided against the Revenue by the same court in a previous judgment. Therefore, no new substantial questions of law needed to be formulated.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2009-10. 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 formulated by the Revenue arise for consideration and if the appeal is maintainable based on previous High Court pronouncements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.324/2017

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.324/2017

BETWEEN :

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) 55/1, SHILPASHREE VIDHYARANYA COMPLEX MYSORE-570 008

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2) 55/1, SHILPASHREE VIDHYARANYA COMPLEX MYSORE-570 008

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

AND :

M/S.KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK (FORMERLY CAUVERY KALPATHARU GRAMEENA BANK), CA-20 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA MYSORE

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI A.SHANKAR & SRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATES)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE

ITA No.324/2017

-2- SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.1077/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU.

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Ag.CJ (Oral):

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the first question raised in this appeal does not arise for consideration. He submits that the second question is answered against the appellants by this Court in CIT & Anr. vs. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank [(2016) 282 CTR (Kar) 517]. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkv

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 →