THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS &

PDF · subscribers
ITA/22/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01009288201316 December 2015Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the first question was decided in favour of the assessee. The second question was deemed academic and not requiring an answer in light of the first question's outcome.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that confirmed the Commissioner's order, which in turn had confirmed the Assessing Officer's order. The appeal raised two questions, the first of which was covered by a previous High Court judgment in favour of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court's prior judgment on a similar issue should be applied. The consequential effect of a pending Supreme Court appeal on the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 260(1A)

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.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA

ITA NO.22/2013

BETWEEN

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

C R BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME-TAX-8(1)

MUMBAI.

3.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(2), C R BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.)

AND

M/S CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PVT LTD., 38/1, NAGNATHPURA ELECTRONIC CITY POST BANGALORE-560 100. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S PARTHASARATHI, ADV.)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION.260- A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.451/BANG/2011 DATED 31.08.2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(1), MUMBAI.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The first question involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Tata Elxi Limited (2012) 349 ITR 98. In view of the first question having been answered in favour of the assessee, learned Counsel for the parties jointly stated that the second question becomes academic in nature and need not be answered. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, this appeal stands dismissed.

2.

However, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that against the judgment of this Court, an appeal is filed to the Apex Court and is pending consideration.

3.

In the event of the Apex Court reversing the judgment of this Court, the assessing authority shall pass consequential orders in terms of Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in conformity with the outcome of the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AN/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →