THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CROSSDOMAIN SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/384/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01044818201216 December 2015Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee, following its own prior judgments. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that was in favor of the assessee. The Revenue's counsel conceded that the issues in the present appeal were covered by previous High Court decisions.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court's previous decisions on similar issues, which were in favor of the assessee, should be applied to the present appeal.

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 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA

ITA NO.384/2012

BETWEEN

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

C R BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(2), C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE.

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

AND

M/S CROSSDOMAIN SOLUTIONS PVT LTD., CENEX, 94, 2ND MAIN INDUSTRIAL SUBURB 2ND STAGE, YESHWATHPUR BANGALORE-560 022. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K K CHYTHANYA, ADV.)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION.260- A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1074/BANG/2011 DATED 29/06/2012 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(2), BANGALORE.

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

JUDGMENT

Learned Counsel for the Appellants has fairly stated that the first question involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tata Elxi Limited’ [2012] 349 ITR 98 and the second question is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Yokogawa India Limited’ [2012] 349 ITR 98.

2.

In the aforesaid Judgments, the questions of law have been answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. For the reasons given in the aforesaid Judgments, the questions raised in this appeal are also answered in favour of the Assessee

3 and against the Revenue. This appeal stands dismissed.

3.

However, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that against the judgments of this Court, appeals are filed to the Apex Court and are 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 appeals before the Supreme Court.

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 →