At The Outset, Shri Anand Submits That Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Covered By The Decision Of This Court In Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another v. Mr.vinay Mishra[2] Holding The Question Of Law In Assessee’s Favour
High Court
06 Feb 2023 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
At The Outset, Shri Anand Submits That Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Covered By The Decision Of This Court In Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another v. Mr.vinay Mishra[2] Holding The Question Of Law In Assessee’s Favour
Date of order
06 Feb 2023
Assessment year(s)
2014-2015
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In At The Outset, Shri Anand Submits That Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Covered By The Decision Of This Court In Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another v. Mr.vinay Mishra[2] Holding The Question Of Law In Assessee’s Favour, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of the above, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed; 2 ITA No.75/2013 DD 31.08.2020 (ii) The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
Digitally signed byYASHODHA NLocation: HIGH
YASHODHA NLocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXINTERNATIONAL TAXATION
7 FLOOR BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095
2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1) 7 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095 …APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. M. DILIP, STANDING COUNSEL FOR
SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL)
AND:
SHRI RAVINDRA UPADRASHTA IBM INDIA PVT LTD. EMBASSY GOLF LINKS RING ROAD,KORAAMANGALA OFF INDIRANAGAR BENGLAURU - 560 071 PAN: AAUPU 8848A …RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI. N. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. B.G. CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE)
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 28/08/2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.2342/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 2342/BANG/2018 DATED: 28/08/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 ANNEXURE-C CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the Revenue challenging the order
dated 28.08.2019 in ITA No.2342/Bang/2018 passed by the ITAT[1], "B" Bench, Bangalore, has been admitted to consider following question of law:
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance made under section 54F of the Act by holding that the investment made by assessee outside India satisfies the condition for seeking deduction under section 54F even
1 Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench
though the conditions for claiming exemption under section 54F is not satisfied by the assessee since assessee has to make investment within geographical limits of India and not outside India as prescribed in said section which is a mandatory condition?”
2. Heard Shri. M. Dilip, learned Standing Counsel for
the appellants-Revenue and Shri. N. Anand, learned Advocate for the respondent-Assessee.
3. At the outset, Shri Anand submits that issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Mr.Vinay Mishra[2] holding the question of law in assessee’s favour.
4. The said submission is not disputed by Shri Dilip, in his usual fairness.
5. In view of the above, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is dismissed;
2 ITA No.75/2013 DD 31.08.2020
(ii) The substantial question of law is answered in favour
of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.