Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39936-DB ITA No. 527 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 527 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI BMTC COMPLEX KORMANGALA, BANGALORE.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BENGALURU. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.SANMATHI E.I., ADV.)
AND: M/S. STANLEY BLACK AND DECKER INDIA LTD., NO.28, ‘AKEPMS’, 3RD MAIN 1ST CROSS, ASHWINI LAYOUT KORAMANGALA INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD BENGALURU-560 047 PAN: AAACB4681R. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADV.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 07/03/2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.518/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE COURT AS DEEMED FIT & SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 07/03/2016 THE ITAT, 'A' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN ITA NO.518/BANG/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39936-DB ITA No. 527 of 2016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sanmathi.E.I., for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar for respondent/assessee.
The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 07.03.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.518/Bang/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11.
This
Court,
admitted the appeal on 31.10.2017 to consider the following substantial question of law:
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39936-DB ITA No. 527 of 2016
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of warranty provision of Rs.1,29,27,237/- even without considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls Pvt. Ltd., v/s. CIT (reported in 314 ITR page 62) and even when it being the second year of operation for the assessee company no reliable historical trend can be traced out for estimating the obligation?”
Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39936-DB ITA No. 527 of 2016
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the question of law is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.
Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
MPK CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11