COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SRI. H P SATHYANARAYANA GUPTA

PDF · subscribers
RP/236/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01023678201222 June 2012Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR4 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 consequential orders only after the Supreme Court's decision on the pending SLP.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order. The assessee contended that the substantial questions of law were covered by a previous High Court judgment in Tata Elxsi Ltd. The Revenue acknowledged this but mentioned a pending SLP in the Supreme Court against the Tata Elxsi judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are covered by the High Court's previous judgment in Tata Elxsi Ltd. and whether the appeal should be decided based on that precedent pending a Supreme Court decision.

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 28th DAY OF APRIL 2014

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR

I.T.A.NO.236/2012 BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III C.R.BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12(4) BANGALORE.

... APPELLANTS (BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADV.,)

AND:

M/S. TEKTRONIX ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., SAMRAH PLAZA, NO.4/2, ST.MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.VANI H. ADV.,)

- 2 - THIS ITA FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:01/03/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.655/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2012 PASSED BY THE ITAT TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.655/BANG/2011, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, Dilip B. Bhosale J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

PC: 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 -

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 that judgment with direction to the Assessing Officer to pass consequential order only after SLP/Appeal is disposed of by the Supreme 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.

- 4 - 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.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE Srl.

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 →