Ita/462/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Sri V Lakshminarayana
High Court
06 Mar 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Ita/462/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Sri V Lakshminarayana
Date of order
06 Mar 2015
Assessment year(s)
2000-2001
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/462/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Sri V Lakshminarayana, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU|
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF MARCH 2015.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA|
ITA NO 462 OF 2014
BETWEHR
1.THR COMMISSIONER OF|INCOME TAX-IlIlC R BUILDING, QUEENS ROADBANGALORE-560 001.|
2.THER ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE1 (2)BANGALORE.~. APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. E TSANMATHI, ADV.)
AND|
SRI V LAKSHMINARAYANANO.968, 17TH MAIN.14TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI IISTAGE, BANGALORE 560 070.
~ RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A SHANKAR & SRI. M LAVA, ADVS.)
This ITA filed Under Sec.260-A of Income Tax Act 1961,arising out of order dated:05/06/2014 passed in ITA No.|NO.869/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001.
THISITACOMING|ON,FORORDERS.THIS.VINEET SARANJ)DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:|
DAY, |
JUDGMENT
The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the|order passed by the Tribunal which has set aside the imposition ofpenalty following a judgment of this Court passed in the case ofCommissioner of Income-Tax & another -vs- ManjunathaCotton and Ginning Factory in (2013) 359 ITR 565.Therefore, we do not see any justification to interfere with theimpugned order and allow this appeal. However, it is submittedthat the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Hon’bleSupreme Court against the said judgment of this Court and it isstill pending. In the event of the revenue succeeding in theappeal, liberty 1s reserved to the revenue to revive this appeal. |
With the said observation,the appeal ts dismissed.
Sd/- |
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
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.