Ita/407/2015 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.407 OF 2015 BE!]VWEE 1.|PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX |C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD|BANGALORE 560001.C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD|BANGALORE 560001. 2 |DEPUTY COMMISSIONER|OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)BANGALORE.OF 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 COLONYBASAVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 037. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. ADV., A/W|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.1779/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13,|PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:(1) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION 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.17/79/BANG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENTYEAR 2012-13, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT|SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF|JUSTICE. THISITACOMINGONFOR.HEARING,|THISDAY,ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short)have been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of2017-13.The appeal was admitted by a bench of this 01.03.2016 on the following substantial questions oflaw: (I)Whether.In|thefacts|and|circumstancesOF|theCaSeé,thetribunal was correct in law in holdingthat the provisions of Section 45(2)and 49(1) of the Income Tax Act arenot applicable in respect to tneproperty received by assessee on (iI) partial partition of Hindu UndividedFamily 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|circumstances|oftheCaSE,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.