Partly allowed

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Cit(a) v. Messers Vsl Mining Company Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2023ITA/36/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Income Tax appeal in part, setting aside the Tribunal's order regarding deduction under Section 10B while keeping the question regarding seized material under Section 143(3) and 153C open.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; Order dated 28.06.2019 in ITA No.1854/Bang/2013 set aside as it relates to question No.1. Question No.2 kept open.

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Cit(a) Vs Messers Vsl Mining… — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

ITA No. 36 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2020

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT, CIRCLE-2 (1) (2), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. ARAVIND K V.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

MESSERS VSL MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD., HOUSE OF LAD, PALACE ROAD, SANDUR, KARNATAKA -583 119.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. A SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI LAVA M.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

¶21

ITA No. 36 of 2020

¶22

THIS ITA UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED PASSED IN ITA NO. 1854/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009, PRAYING TO 1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. 2. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 1854/BANG/2013 DATED 28/06/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 ANNEXURE-D AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal by the Revenue, challenging the order dated 28.06.2019 in ITA No.1854/Bang/2013 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru has been admitted to consider following questions of law:

¶26

"1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the tribunal erred in holding that assessee-company is entitled for deduction under section 10B of the Act without appreciating that the assessee-

¶27

¶28

ITA No. 36 of 2020

¶29

company has not exported Article to satisfy the conditions set out in section 10B of the Act?

¶30

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessing authority cannot take cognizance of the seized material in the proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act without invoking provisions of section 153C of the Act by ignoring that there is no bar section 143(3) nor under section 153C or under any other provisions of the Act to take cognizance of seized material in regular assessment?"

¶31

At the outset Shri.A.Shankar, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee submitted that question No.1 has been answered against Revenue in “Tata Elxsi Ltd., Vs. ACIT ”.¹ Shri. K.V. Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue does not dispute the same. Shri.Aravind also submitted that question No.2 is the subject matter in other appeals and the same may be kept open.

¶32

1 (2015) 127 DRT 327 (Kar)

¶33

¶34

ITA No. 36 of 2020

¶35

3. The question No.1 is answered in favour of the

¶36

assessee and against the Revenue. Question No.2 is kept open.

¶37

4. Hence, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶40

ii) Order dated 28.06.2019 in

¶41

ITA No.1854/Bang/2013 passed by Income Tax

¶42

Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru is set aside so far

¶43

as it relates to question No.1.

¶44

iii) Question No.2 is kept open.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Cit(a) v. Messers Vsl Mining Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Cit(a) v. Messers Vsl Mining Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Cit(a) Vs M/S Bhoruka Power Corporation Ltd.

Idrs Labs Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Pr. Commissioner of Vs M/S Flextronics Technologies

Mrs Anita Goverdhan Loebbert Vs the Income Tax Officer

Dr Arvind Goverdhan Vs the Income Tax Officer

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Gokula Education