COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA HOTEL AND COMMERCIAL

PDF · subscribers
RP/352/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01026013201222 June 2012Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the Tata Elxsi Ltd. judgment, answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a consequential order after the Supreme Court's decision on a pending SLP.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the substantial questions of law were covered by a previous High Court judgment in Tata Elxsi Ltd. and requested the appeal be disposed of in terms of that order.

What were the issues?

Whether the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are covered by the High Court's judgment in Tata Elxsi Ltd. and should be decided in favour of the assessee.

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 BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF APRIL 2014

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR

ITA.NO.352/2012

BETWEEN

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE

2.

THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(3), C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.,)

AND

M/S GE INDIA EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD (FORMERLY GE POWER CONTROLS INDIA (P) LTD) 42/1 & 45/14 ELECTRONIC CITY, PHASE-II BANGALORE-561229

... RESPONDENT

(BY M/S. LAWYERS INC, ADV., (ABSENT))

THIS ITA FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22/05/2012 PASSED IN ITA

2 NO.690/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.690/BANG/2011 DATED 22/05/2012 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(3), BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, DILIP B. BHOSALE J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

PC:

We have heard Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the Revenue. None appears for the respondent.

2.

Mr.Aravind, learned counsel for the Revenue, at the outset, invited our attention to the order passed on 28.04.2014 in ITA No.188/2012 and submitted that this appeal may also be disposed of in terms of that order.

3.

The order passed in ITA No.188/2012 dated 28.04.2014 reads thus:-

3 “We have heard learned counsel for the parties. By consent, the appeal is heard for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, at the outset, invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in Tata Elxsi Ltd., [349 ITR 98 (Kar)] and submitted that the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are squarely covered by this judgment and they deserve to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in terms thereof.

3.

Having confronted with this, Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-revenue submitted that the revenue has filed Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the aforementioned judgment of this Court and the appeal is pending. He, however, fairly states that this appeal may be disposed of in terms of this judgment, with direction to the Assessing Officer to pass consequential order only after SLP/Appeal is disposed of by the Supreme

4 Court. In other words, he submitted that the Assessing Officer may be directed to pass consequential order in the light of the order of the Supreme Court that will be passed in the abovementioned SLP/Appeal.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent, has no objection for making such observations and for disposal of this appeal.

5.

In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal in terms of the judgment of this Court in Tata Elxsi Ltd., answering all the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, with direction to the Assessing Officer to pass consequential order under Section 260-1A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned SLP/Appeal that will be passed in due course. No costs”.

4.

Mr.Aravind, learned counsel for the Revenue further submits that the substantial question of law raised in this appeal are also squarely covered by the judgment

5 of this Court in Tata Elxsi Ltd., and that may be decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in terms of the order dated 28.04.2014 in ITA No.188/2012.

5.

In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal in terms of the judgment of this Court in Tata Elxsi Ltd., answering the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, with direction to the Assessing Officer to pass consequential order under Section 260-1A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned SLP/Appeal that will be passed in due course. No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

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 →