Itxa/251/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. General Atlantic Private Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax-3…Appellant v/s.General Atlantic Private Ltd.…Respondent …. Mr. N.C. Mohanty,for the Appellant.Mr. P.F. Kaka, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Divesh Chawla, i/b Atul K. Jasani,for the Respondent. ….. CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA &M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 15[th] July, 2016 P.C : 1.This Appeal under Section 260-A Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act)challenges the order dated 17[th] May, 2013 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order relates toAssessment year 2007-2008. 2.The Appellant-Revenue has re-framed the following question oflaw for our consideration:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law the Tribunal was justified in law holding that the Sameer Pg 1 of 3 assessee's activity of providing services is similar to the natureof services and activity of Carlyle India Advisors Pvt. Ltd.Ignoring the fact that activities of the assessee's arecomparable to merchant banking / investment bankingactivities?” 3.We note that the impugned order of the Tribunal allowed theRespondent-Assessee's appeal by following its order in the case ofsame Respondent-Assessee for the Assessment Year 2006-2007. It is anagreed position between the parties that being aggrieved by the orderof the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 rendered in respectof the same Assessee, the Revenue had preferred an appeal to thisCourt being Income Tax Appeal No. 1993 / 2013. This court by anorder dated 8[th] March, 2016 dismissed the Revenue's appeal. 4.Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to showany distinguishing features in the present facts which would warranttaking a view different from that taken in the order dated 8[th] March2016, in Income Tax Appeal 1993 / 2013. Sameer Pg 2 of 3 906-ITXA-251-14.doc 5.Therefore, as the proposed question of law is a concluded issue,the question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question oflaw. Thus, not entertained. 6.Appeal is dismissed.No order as to costs. (M.S. KARNIK J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA J.) Sameer Pg 3 of 3