PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, vs. M/S MAKINO INDIA PVT. LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/265/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01030809201628 June 2016Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the question of law was already covered by a previous judgment of the same court, no substantial question of law arose. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order allowing set off of losses from a non-10A unit against profits of a 10A unit. The High Court heard the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether losses from a non-10A unit can be set off against profits of a 10A unit, and if this constitutes a substantial question of law for appeal.

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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

ITA NO.265 OF 2016

BETWEEN

1.

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4

BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE.

2.

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER

CIRCLE 12(1), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)

AND

M/S. MAKINO INDIA PVT.LTD NO.11, EPIP, K.R.PURAM BANGALORE – 560 066. PAN : AACCM6536A

...RESPONDENT

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 4.11.2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘A’

BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.936/BANG/2014 FOR A.Y.2004-05.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appellants-Revenue have preferred this present appeal by raising the following substantial question of law:

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer allow the set off losses (depreciation/business) pertaining to non-10A unit against profit of 10A unit even when the same is not permitted under the provisions of the Act?”

2.

We have heard Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Revenue.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue fairly concedes that the question of law is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Another –vs- Yokogawa India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn).

4.

In our view, when the question is already covered by the decision of this Court, we do not find any substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE TL

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 →