We Have Heard Sri. K.v. Aravind, Learned v. Santosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BBNGALURU DATBD THIS THR 18 DAY OF JANUARY, 20106 PRESENT THR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL AND THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA| ITA No.230/2015 BETWEEN 1.The Commissioner ot Income-taxC R Building,C R Building, Attavara, Mangalore-575 OO1. Oo.The Income-tax Officer Ward-1(1)| C R Building Attavara Mangalore-575 OO1. ..Appellants (By Sri. K.V.Aravind, Advocate) AND M/s. Operators CommunicationNetwork Pvt. Ltd.,14-1-81, Top FloorTrade Centre, Bunts Hostel RoadMangalore-5795 031. .... Responde This Appeal is filed under Section 260-A of Income-tax|Act, 1961, to set aside the order passed by the Income-tax|Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in ITA No.128/Bang/2014|dated 22.01.2015 confirming the order of the Appellate|Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore. This Appeal coming on for Admission, this day,N.K. Patil, J..delivered the following: | JUDGMENT This appeal is by the Revenue, questioning the)correctness of the Order dated 22.1.2015 passed in ITA|No.128/Bang/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate|Tribunal, Bangalore, confirming the order passed by the|Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by theIncome Tax Officer, Ward-— 1/1], Mangalore, to consider thefollowing substantial questions of law. “1.|Whether the Trbunal twas correct inholding that the amendment to provisionsof section 40faj(ia) by the finance Act,2010 was clearly remedial/curative innature and retrospectively effective fromO]1.04.2005? a2Whether the Tnbunaql was correct insholding that the tax deducted at sourcecould be held as a provision and could beremitted to the government account beforethe due date of filing of return undersection.I39(1)byover-seeingtheSupremacy of legislative implication ofsection 40(a)(ta) of the Income-tax ActP~holding that the tax deducted at sourcecould be held as a provision and could beremitted to the government account beforethe due date of filing of return undersection.I39(1)byover-seeingtheSupremacy of legislative implication ofsection 40(a)(ta) of the Income-tax ActP~ 2.We have heard Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned| Counsel appearing for the Appellants, for some time. 3.During the course of submission, learned|Counsel for the appellants submitted that in the light of the|COTTRIMJudgmentdated15.7.2014passed1n ITA|No.590/2013and|connectedCaS@eS1n theCaseOT|‘Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. Santosh| Kumar Shetty’,and for the reasons stated therein, theinstant appeal may be dismissed. 4 Submission of the learned Counsel for the'appellants is placed on record. 5.The instant appeal filed by the appellants is|dismissed following the Judgment dated 15.7.2014 passed inITA No.590/2013 and connected cases [Supra], and for the|reasons stated therein. AN/- Sd/-|JUDGE Sd/-|JUDGE