COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI NAVEEN KUMAR L

PDF · subscribers
ITA/266/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01032065201529 September 2015Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no substantial question of law arose for determination. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order. Both parties agreed that the issue was covered by a previous High Court decision in favor of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether a substantial question of law arises for determination by the High Court in an appeal against an ITAT 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 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.266 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING BANGALORE.

2.

INCOME TAX OFFICER

WARD-6(3)

BANGALORE.

... APPELLANTS

[BY:SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE]

AND:

SHRI NAVEEN KUMAR.L PAN: ADAPN1898A NO.431, SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BETTAHALSUR POST JALA HOBLI, NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-562157

... RESPONDENT

[BY:SRI A.SHANKAR & SRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATES]

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:12/12/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1426/BANG/2013,

2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 WITH A PRAYER 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) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 12/12/2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA NO. 1426/BNG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL.

THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Heard Sri E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for appellants as well as Sri A.Shankar and Sri M.Lava for respondent – assessee and perused the record.

2.

Learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that the question involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, (2013) 359 ITR 565, wherein, the question has been decided in favour of assessee and against the appellant – revenue.

3 3. As such, 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

VGR

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 →