Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
I.T.A.NO.146 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE
... APPELLANT
(BY:SRI.E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE ) AND:
MANGALORE CO OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., I FLOOR, CLASSIC ARCADE K.S.RAO ROAD MANGALORE-575003.
... RESPONDENT
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:26/09/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1856/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 PRAYING TO: 1. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND (2) TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED: 26/09/2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA NO. 1856/BANG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN. J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2 JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial question of law:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee – society is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act?”
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the question involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in I.T.A.189/2014, Commissioner of Income Tax – III Vs. M/s.Quest Informatics Pvt. Ltd., decided on 5.1.2015 wherein, the question has been answered in favour of assessee and against the revenue.
In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court.
3 4. Sri E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellant states that challenging the said order in the case of M/s.Quest Informatics Pvt. Ltd., (supra), revenue has filed an appeal before the Apex Court, which is pending.
As such, in the event, Apex Court reverses the judgment, then the Assessing Authority shall pass consequential orders in terms of Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act and inconformity with the outcome of the appeal before Supreme Court.
With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE VGR