Ita/176/2016 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Karnataka Water Supply And Drainage Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 27072PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD1.T.A. NO.1/76 OF 201 BEITWEEN 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX| (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE. 2D.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-17(1) BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I1. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND M/S. KARNATAKA WATERSUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARDNO.6, JAL BHAVAN, FIRST STAGE|BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE|AAATK 583 /7F. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADV., FOR.SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,) THIS I.T.A. IS. FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OFIL.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 04-09-2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.283/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2011-12, PRAYING TO: I. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/ORSUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATEDBY THE HON BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. Il. SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 04-09-2015THE|ITAT,.‘CcBENCH,|BENGALURU,IN|TTANO.283/BANG/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND|TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMD FIT, IN THEINTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,|ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue has entered appearance through video conferencing. Smt.Jinitha Chatterjee, learned counsel for tneaSSe@SSAEC 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act’, forsnort) nas been preferred by the revenue. Tne subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this.Court vide order dated 02.11.2017 to consider the'following substantial question of law: “Whether.Of)thefactsand.inthecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal Isrignt in nolding tnat tne proviso to section|2(15) Is not applicability in tne assessee s CaSé,whileInthegivenfactsandcircumstances of the case, it may be noted|that as per the amended provisions of section2(15), once the assessing officer nas made afinding that the assessee is engaged in tne|activities which are in the nature of trade,|commerce or business, then, the objects of'the assessee are not considered as charitable|purpose. — 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned|counsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaid|substantial question of law has already been answeredby this Court by judgment dated 30.09.2020 passed inITA No.205/2016 against the revenue. The aforesaidsubmission could not be disputed by the learned counselfor the revenue. 4. For the reasons assigned by us in judgment|dated 30.09.2020 passed in ITA No.205/2016, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is.answered against the revenue and in favour of theaSSe@SSAEC In the result, we do not find any merit in theappeal and the same Is dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE. Sd/-|JUDGE. RV