THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S PRAGYA ENTERPRISES

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2016

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA ITA NO.451/2015 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax

C.R.Building

Queens Road

Bangalore.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Circle-1(1)

No.59, HMT Bhavan

6th Floor, Bellary Road

Ganganagar,

Bangalore-560 032.

. . . Appellants (By Sri Dilip for Sri K.V.Aravind, Advocates)

AND:

M/s.Pragya Enterprises No.11/3, Nandidurga Road,

2 Bangalore, PAN:AADFP 8838N

. . . Respondent

This Appeal is filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 10.04.2015 passed in C.O.No.55/Bang/2014, for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 praying to formulate the substantial question of law stated above and allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bengaluru, in C.O.No.55/Bang/2014 dated 10.04.2015 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bengaluru.

This Appeal coming on for Admission this day, JAYANT PATEL J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

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

“1. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in allowing the claim of exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act in respect of income arising from transfer of capital asset viz., equity shares of

3 M/s.Bhoruka Financial Services Ltd., (BFSL) on sale of which securities transaction tax has been paid?

Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in upholding the claim u/s.10(38) of the Act, without appreciating that the transaction through Magadh Stock Exchange which is an unrecognized exchange and that the SEBI had constituted an enquiry into the affairs of this transaction which included the stock exchange officials?”

Mr.Dilip, for Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned Counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that on similar questions, an appeal was preferred by the revenue, being ITA No.452/2015 and the same has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2015.

Under the circumstances, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Hence the present appeal is also dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

JT/-

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRAGYA ENTERPRISES