THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S. INFOSYS BPO LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/334/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01031626201611 October 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 formulated by the Revenue were either not arising for consideration or had already been decided against them in similar cases. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the ITAT concerning assessment year 2006-2007. The Revenue's counsel conceded that one substantial question of law did not arise and the other two were decided against them in previous High Court judgments.

What were the issues?

Whether the substantial questions of law formulated by the Revenue in their appeal are valid and arise for consideration before the High Court, and if they are covered by previous High Court decisions.

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(2)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.334/2016

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 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.334/2016

BETWEEN :

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIT(A), 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA

BANGALORE – 560 095

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIRCLE-3(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR

BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD

KORMANGALA

BANGALORE – 560 095

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI FOR SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATES)

AND :

M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD. PLOT NO.26/D, 26/4 & 26/6 KONNAPPA AGRAHARA, ELECTRONIC CITY HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 100 ...RESPONDENT

(BY Ms.TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR FOR SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATES)

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 09.12.2015 IN ITA NO.1004/BANG/2014 FOR THE

ITA No.334/2016

-2-

ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 PASSED 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):

1.

Sri E.I.Sanmathi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants fairly submits that the substantial question of law formulated at para VI(3) in the appeal memorandum does not arise for consideration and the substantial questions of law formulated at paras VI(1) and VI(2) in the appeal memorandum are answered against the appellants by this Court in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [(2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn)] and CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)]. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

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 →