Ita/681/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Wipro Finance Ltd
High Court
09 Oct 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Ita/681/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Wipro Finance Ltd
Date of order
09 Oct 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/681/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Wipro Finance Ltd, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.
Decision: Ifthe Supreme Court were to answer in favour of theassessee, the Revenue can file a memo and get thisappeal revived for disposal in accordance with law. | Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE O0 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012.
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SREEDHAR RAO|
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.PINTO |
ITA NO.681 OF 2007
BETWEEN
1.THERE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA
C.R. BUILDING
QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE.
2.THR DBEPUTY COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME -TAX
CHNTRAL CIRCLE - [IV
C R BUILDING
QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE. _. APPBELLANTS
(BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADV.)
ANT
M/S WIPRO FINANCE LTD
NO.5, PAPANNA STREET
ST. MARK’S ROAD CROSS
BANGALORE. —. RBSPONDBENT
(BY SRIL.R B KRISHNA, MURTHY & KUMAR, ADVS.)
THIS ITA IS FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATHKD 20-04-2007 PASSED INITA NO.284/BNG/2003, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR|1994-95, PRAYING TO:
I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OFLAW SITATED THEREIN,
Il. ALLOW THR APPBAL AND SET ASIDE THR ORDER.PASSEDBY|THERITATBANGALOREIN-ITA|NO.|284/BNG/2003,.DATEHD20-04-2007CONFIRMTHE.ORDERSORF THR APPKELLATK COMMISSIONER ANCONFIRMTHERORDERPASSEDBY|THE.DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-IV,BANGALORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND|EOUITY.
THIS [TA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS.DAY,SREEDHAR RAO J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JU DBiGMENT
This Courtin.ITANos.106/2004and633/2004 disposed of on 02.04.2008, has held thatincome which 1s =# assessed as undisclosed incomewouldnothave|beenassessed|for.theregularassessment years. In that view, the substantial|question of law raised in the memorandum of appealare answered against the Revenue. However, it issubmitted that the assessee has preferred an appealin Civil Appeal No.2696/2010 before the Supreme Court
wherein, deduction disallowed in the blockassessment year, was also disallowed in the regularassessment on protective basis. The said order
is challenged by the assessee in the Supreme Court. Ifthe Supreme Court were to answer in favour of theassessee, the Revenue can file a memo and get thisappeal revived for disposal in accordance with law. |
Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-|JUDGESd/-|JUDGE
5?E
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.
EaseValue