Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
ITA NOs.474-476/2014
BETWEEN
THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), 3RD FLOOR, C.R.BUILDINGS, QUEEN’S ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE-560 001
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)
AND
M/S.CHILDREN EDUCATION SOCIETY, NO.40, 1ST PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078.
..RESPONDENT
(BY SRI A.SHANKAR & SRI M.LAVA, ADVS.,)
THESE ITAs. ARE FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 30.05.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1554/BANG/2012, ITA NO.1658/BANG/2012 & CO NO.51/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 WITH A PRAYER TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF LAW AND ETC., AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30.05.2014 PASSED BY ITAT, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10.
THESE ITAs. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri A.Shankar and Sri M.Lava, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
These appeals have been ADMITTED on the following substantial question of law:
“Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the respondent-assessee is eligible for grant of registration under Section 11 of I.T.Act based on its earlier order granting registration under Section 12A to the
assessee, when the earlier order of the Tribunal has not reached finality”?
Learned counsel for the parties agree that the question in these appeals is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Director of Income-Tax –vs- Garden City Educational Trust (2011) 330 ITR 480 (Karn), which has answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
As such, for the reasons given in the aforesaid judgment of Garden City (supra), these appeals are dismissed and the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE TL