Ita/117/2016 Of The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Ashok Shetty
High Court
25 Sep 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Ita/117/2016 Of The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Ashok Shetty
Date of order
25 Sep 2024
Assessment year(s)
2011-2012, 2011-12
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Ita/117/2016 Of The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Ashok Shetty, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.
Decision: In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
Digitally
signed by B
LAVANYALocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.117 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX,
CIT(A), ATTAVARA,
C.R. BUILDING, MANGALURU - 575 001. MANGALURU - 575 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME-TAX,
CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN,
MALPE ROAD, AADIUDUPI, AADIUDUPI,
AMBALAPODI PO,
UDUPI - 576 103.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANMATHI E.I, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39915-DB
ITA No. 117 of 2016
AND:
SHRI. ASHOK SHETTY, PROP: M/S. ASHOK IMPEX, RAJ TOWERS, OPP: CITY BUS STAND, UDUPI - 576 101, PAN: ADBPM 5671P.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE)
THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED14/08/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1562/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 PRAYING TO 1. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sanmathi.E.I., for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri. M.Lava for respondent/assessee.
2. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.1562/Bang/2014 for the assessment year 2011-12.
3. This Court, admitted the appeal on 03.10.2017 to consider the following substantial question of law:
1. "Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 10A/10B of the Act when the assessee had failed to satisfy all the requirements under said section and as it is a case of exemptions the strict
interpretation was required to be done in the case of assessee"?
4. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal
is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the question of law is
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39915-DBITA No. 117 of 2016
kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.
Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
SMJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0
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.