THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI PADMAIAH VUPPU

PDF · subscribers
ITA/190/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01024846201516 October 2015Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the Tribunal had rightly decided the issue in favor of the assessee, relying on a previous judgment. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for determination.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns the imposition of penalty by the Income Tax Department. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had decided the issue in favor of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal correctly decided the penalty imposition issue in favor of the assessee, and if a substantial question of law arises from the Tribunal's order.

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.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA

ITA NO.190/2015 BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE

C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3)

C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE

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

AND:

SHRI PADMAIAH VUPPU PROP: M/S FORTUNA CONSTRUCTIONS NO.3156, 12TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE …RESPONDENT

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DT:13.10.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1099/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-2007. PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA

2 NO.1099/BANG/2013 DATED 13.10.2014 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE.

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

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records.

2.

The question in this appeal relates to imposition of penalty, which question has been decided by the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is filed.

3.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the facts of this case we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly, after relying on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, [2013] 359 ITR 565, decided the issue in favour of assessee.

4.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this court.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AN/-

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 →