Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 678/2015
BETWEEN:
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
THE DY.COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX,
CENTRAL CIRCLE 12(3),
BANGALORE.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. SILVER SOFTWARE PVT.LTD. NO.23 AND 24, EPIP I PHASE, KIADB WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560066. PAN:AADC6245H
...RESPONDENT
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 29/05/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1642/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 PRAYING 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 COMMON APPELLATE ORDER DATED: 29/05/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'B' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA NO. 1642/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT
The appellants-Revenue has preferred both the appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that income of the assessee is business income even when assessing authority had rightly held that income falls under the head “Income from
3 house property” considering the provisions of the Act and materials on record?
Whether the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature since Tribunal has failed to consider the intention of the assessee in entering into agreements of lease whereby the building has been let out on square feet basis which means that the rent is basically earned for the super structure and such rent has been rightly assessed as house property income?
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants- Revenue Sri E.I.Sanmathi concedes that the issue is, as such covered by the decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax – vs – Velankani Information Systems (P) Ltd., reported at (2014) (265) CTR (KAR) 0250. However, he submits that the matter is carried before the Apex Court and SLP is pending.
In our view, when the issues are already covered by the decision of this Court, it cannot be said
4 that any substantial questions of law would arise for consideration in this appeal.
Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed but with an observation that, in the event, the Apex Court takes a different view, the Revenue may be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
Subject to the abovesaid observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
Sk/-