Ita/406/2015 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sri C Ramaiah Reddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF JUNE 2020. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA_ LT.A. NO.406 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1.PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX |C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD|C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD| BANGALORE 560001. 2.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF|INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (2)BANGALORE.INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (2)BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV., FOR|SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,)SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: SRI. C. RAMAIAH REDDY _ NO. 19-22, SANDEEP NILAYAM| 1ST CROSS, SECTOR-C, VIBHUTHIPURARAMAIAH REDDY COLONY, BASAVANAGAR|BENGALURU - 560 03/. .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. ADV., A/W|SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) |SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) | THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT,1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10/04/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1778/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12,|PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:(1) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTIONS OF LAW AND/OR-SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. (II) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 10/4/2015.PASSED BY THE ITAT, C BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL|PROCEEDINGS NO.ITA NO.1778/BANG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT|YEAR 2011-12, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL. THISLIACOMINGONFOR.HEARING,THISALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DAY, JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax)Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) Nave been filed Dy the revenue. The subject matter of2011-12.The appeal was admitted by a bench of this01.03.2016 on the following substantial questions oflaw: (I)Whether.In|thefacts|and|circumstances|OF|theCaSeé,thetribunal was correct in law in noldingthat the provisions of Section 45(2)and 49(1) of the Income Tax Act arenot applicable in respect to theproperty received by assessee onpartial partition of Hindu Undivided (iI) Family and thereby deleting the longtermcapitalgainofRs.13,16,08,600/- and short termcapital gain of Rs.77,29,09,600/- forAssessment year 2011-12 and longtermcapitalgainofRs.27,95,22,234/- and short termcapital gain of RS.7,41,04,606/- forAssessment year 2012-137? WhetherIn|thefactsand|circumstancesoftheCaSE,thetribunal was correct in law in holdingthat the cost of the’ propertiesreceived in partial partition of HUF tobe|adoptedaS|claimedby theassessee under Section 37(1) of the[Income Tax Act as deduction whilecomputing the income under thehead ‘Profit and Gains of Business orProfession’, ignoring the fact that theassessee did not incur any cost onsuch properties other than the costincurred by the HUF? | 2 |It is agreed by learned counsel for the partiesthat the answer to the substantial questions of lawinvolved in the instant case would depend on thedecision of this court which would be rendered inI.T.A.No.318/2012. Since, Dy way of judgment passedtoday in ITA No.318/2012, it has been held that nosubstantial questions of law arise for determination andthe appeal has already been dismissed. Therefore, forthe reasons assigned in the aforesaid appeal, this appealis also dismissed. ~ Sd/-JUDGE. Sd/-—JUDGE.