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

PDF · subscribers
RP/350/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01029283201222 June 2012Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of its earlier judgments in Yokogawa India Ltd. and Tata Elxsi Ltd., 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 appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order confirming an earlier appellate commissioner's decision. The assessee argued that the substantial questions of law were covered by previous High Court judgments. The Revenue acknowledged pending Supreme Court appeals against those judgments.

What were the issues?

Whether the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are covered by previous High Court judgments. The consequential effect of pending Supreme Court appeals on the High Court's 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 29th DAY OF APRIL 2014

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR

ITA.NO.350/2012

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 24/7 CUSTOMER PVT LTD EMBASSY GOLF LINK, BUSINESS PARK CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE OFF. INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560071

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K R VASUDEVAN, ADV.,)

THIS ITA FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22/05/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.268/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE

2 ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.268/BANG/2010 DATED 22/05/2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(2), BANGALORE.

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

PC:

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, at the outset, invited our attention to the judgments of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Yokogawa India Ltd, in ITA No.78/2011 & 918/2011 decided on 9.8.2011 and Tata Elxsi Ltd., [349 ITR 98 (Kar)] and submitted that the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are squarely covered by those judgments and they deserve to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in terms thereof.

3.

Having confronted with this, Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-revenue submitted that the revenue has filed Special Leave

3 Petitions in the Supreme Court against the aforementioned judgments of this Court and the appeals are pending. He, however, fairly states that this appeal may be disposed of in terms of those judgments with direction to the Assessing Officer to pass consequential order only after SLPs/Appeals are 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 SLPs/Appeals.

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 judgments of this Court in Yokogawa India Ltd, and Tata Elxsi Ltd., answering 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

4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned SLPs/Appeals that will be passed in due course. No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE TL

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 →