PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/55/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01018073201608 November 2017Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY (AG.CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law did not arise for consideration and that a key question was already answered against the appellants. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Department appealed an order passed by the ITAT. The Department's counsel conceded that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal did not arise for consideration. Furthermore, one of the questions was already decided against the Department by the High Court.

What were the issues?

Whether the substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal memorandum arise for consideration and whether a specific question of law was already decided by the High Court.

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(1)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.

ITA No.55/2016

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH 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.55/2016

BETWEEN :

1.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12 (4) BANGALORE ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND :

M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., (RAMBUS INDIA), 12TH FLOOR TOWER C & D, IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK 4/1, BANNERGATTA ROAD BANGALORE

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘B’ BENCH

ITA No.55/2016

-2-

BENGALURU IN ITA NO.61/BANG/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010.

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 and second substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal memorandum do not arise for consideration and the third question raised is answered against the appellants by this Court in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)]. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Yn.

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 →