Ita/836/2007 Of M/S Karnataka State Small Industries Development v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 14[th]DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014. PRESENT THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE AND| THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA.NO.836/200/ BETWEEN M/S KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIESDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITEDA.O.BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTAERAJAJINAGAR,, BANGALORE 560044REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR|SRI.DR.RAJ KUMAR KHATRIAGED ABOUT 4/7 YEARSS/O LATE T.D. KHATRI— APPELLANT| (BY SRI MALAHARA, ADV., AND MISS JENITH, ADV., FOR SRIS PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,). AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11 (3)NO.14/3, RSHTROTHANA BHAVANNRUPATHUNGA ROADBANGALORE 560001| .., RESPONDENT (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.,). THIS I.T.A. FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT 1961 ARISINGOUT OF ORDER DATED 13-0O0/7-200/7/ PASSED IN ITA2/1/BANG/2006FORTHE|ASSESSMENTYEAR|2002-03,PRAYING TO I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF| LAW STATED THEREIN, Il. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDETHE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH-A,|BANGALORE IN ITA NO.271/BANG/2006 DATED 13-07-200/7, INTHE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS’ DAY, | Dilip B. Bhosale J.DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PC: The questions of law, as raised in the memorandum Of appeal read thus: i. Whnetner the Appellant whicn is a companyincorporated under the Companies Act, 1956and a Government company as defined inSection 617 of the Companies Act, naving100% shareholding in the Corporation, falls|within the definition of “authority” as perSection 10(20A) of the Income-tax Act? ii. Whether the Tribunal naving accepted tnatthe Appellant was an authority, can deny tnebenefit under Section 10(20A) of the Act onlyon the ground that it was not constituted underan enactment and whether for the purpose ofSection 10(20A), a constitution under theprovisions of Companies Act was not sufficientto satisfy the constitution under an enactmentwhen the requirement of Section 10(20A) is.Constitution by or under any law? iii. Whether the decision of the apex Court intne case of Mysore Paper Millis Ltd., aGovernmentof.Karnatakaundertakingregistered under the Companies Act, 1956 (ageneral law) holding the company as ‘anautnority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the company isnothing but a instrumentality and agency ofthe State Government and pnysical form of acompany is merely a cloak or cover for tneGovernment equally applied to the Appellant:which is a 100% Government undertakingincorporated under the Companies Act, 1956?"| 2).Learned counsel for the appellant-assesseefairly submits that in ITA No.1281/2006 before this Court)(M/s.Karnataka State Small Industries Development|Corporation Limited -vs- The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax)ydecided on 03.09.2012, an_ identical|substantial questions of law were raised and consideredand they were answered against the assessee and in.favour of the revenue. Therefore, in all fairness he submits|tnat the questions as raised in the present appeal may also|be answered against the assessee in terms of the)Judgment dated 03.09.2012 in ITA 1281/2006. He furthersubmits that one of us (B.Manohar J.) was party to the.said Judgment. We nave perused the said judgment and)it was authored by one of us (B.Manohar J.). ‘3.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent also joins him in making sucn prayer. Hence, we answer) all the three questions against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.Tne appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. TL| Sd/-.JUDGE| Sd/-. JUDGE|