Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Township P...

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Township Pvt. Ltd.,Which Is Pending Decision. In View Of

High Court 28 Aug 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Township Pvt. Ltd.,Which Is Pending Decision. In View Of
Date of order
28 Aug 2012
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Township Pvt. Ltd.,Which Is Pending Decision. In View Of, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.

Issue: Act, thequestion arose whether the amendment was retrospective orprospective.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF AUGUST, 2012| PRESENT THR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREBDHAR RAO AND THR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK B.MANOHAR 1L.T.A. No. 220 OF Z2O BE TW BE 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle,C.R. Building,Queens Road,Bangalore. ooThe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle-1(2),C.R. Building,Queens Road,Bangalore. Appellants (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) AND: M/s. Sri Lakshmi NarasimhaDistilleries P. Ltd.,No.190, Sankey Road,sadashivanagar,Bangalore. Respondent. (By M/s. K.R. Prasad, Advocates) This I.T.A. is filed U/s.260-A of the I.T. Act, 1961)arising out of Order dated 31.08.2006 passed in I[T(SS)A No.159/Bang/2004, for the Block Assessment Period 01-04-1991 to 27-04-2001, praying that this Hon’ble Court may bepleased to: (i) formulate the substantial questions of law|stated therein and (ii) allow the appeal and set aside theorder passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Bangalore in IT(SS)A No.159/Bang/2004, dated 31.08.2006confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner andconfirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore in the interest ofjustice and equity. This appeal is coming on for final hearing this day,|SREEDHAR RAO, J..,delivered the following: JU DBGMENT In respect of the block assessment, the Assessing|Officer levied the tax for the previous years at the rateapplicable for the year in which search took place. In respectof the amendment effected to Sec.113 of the I.T. Act, thequestion arose whether the amendment was retrospective orprospective. The Supreme Court has held that in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suresh Guptatheamendment is by way of clarification and the law as it stoodeven before the amendment permitted to levy of tax at therate applicable for the year of search. The decision of theSupreme Court in Suresh Gupta’s case is referred to theLarger Bench in|Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.,which is pending decision. In view of the above tacts, it is to be noted that the rate of taxapplicable for the block assessment should be dependantupon the decision of the Supreme Court in Vatika Townshipand other connected cases referred to the larger Bench. iaIn respect of monetary limit as prescribed underthe Circular No.3/11 whether it applies to pending casesshould also be the subject to the decision of the Supremecourt in Ranka and Ranka Case pending in Special LeavePetition. In the event the decision of the Supreme Court is in favour of the revenue, the appellant is permitted to make anapplication for revival of the appeal for disposal inaccordance with the decision of the Supreme Court.|Accordingly, for the present the appeal is disposed olf. psg* od/-JUDGE Sd/-|JUDGE
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan