THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/102/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01022238201509 October 2015Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the issues were covered by its prior ruling in CIT vs. Tata Elxi Limited. It also provided for consequential orders if the Supreme Court reverses the High Court's judgment.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2008-2009. The High Court noted that the issues were covered by a previous decision in CIT vs. Tata Elxi Limited.

What were the issues?

Whether the issues raised in the appeal were covered by the High Court's previous judgment in CIT vs. Tata Elxi Limited. The appeal concerns the tax treatment for the assessment year 2008-2009.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,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 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015 PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

I.T.A.NO.102 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

1.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.

2.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 11(4), Rashtrothana Bhavan, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore – 560 001. .. Appellants

[By Sri K.V.Aravind, Advocate]

AND:

M/s.Honewell Technology Solution Lab Pvt. Ltd. No.1:51/1, Doraisanipalya, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore – 560 076. .. Respondent

[By Sri P.Dinesh, Advocate]

2 This ITA is filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 14.11.2014 passed in IT(TP)A No.963/Bang/2013, for the assessment year 2008- 2009, praying to (1) formulate the substantial questions of law stated above and (2) to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.963/Bang/2013 dated 14.11.2014 and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 11(4), Bangalore.

This ITA, coming on for admission, this day VINEET SARAN.J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT Heard Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the appellant and SriP.Dinesh, learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the records.

2.

The questions involved in this appeal are covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Tata Elxi Limited

(2012) 349 ITR 98. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, this appeal stands dismissed.

3.

However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that against the judgment of this Court,

3 an appeal is filed to the Apex Court and is pending consideration.

4.

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

Cm/-

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 →