Commissioner of Income-tax v. Medical Relief Society of South Kanara
[Citation -2014-LL-1215]

Citation 2014-LL-1215
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax
Respondent Name Medical Relief Society of South Kanara
Court HC
Date of Order 15/12/2014
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags memorandum of appeal
Bot Summary: JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by N. K. Patil J.-In this appeal, the appellants are questioning the correctness of the order dated June 26, 2008, bearing COB. No. 24/Bang/2008, on the file of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, confirming the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore. In this case, the only substantial question of law to be considered is, whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the relinquishment of a right in the partnership firm, Bangalore Housing Development and Investment, by the assessee and the receipt of the consideration of Rs. 33,66,99,989 would not amount to a transfer and no capital gains tax is leviable and whether it is independent of exemption under section 10(23C)(via) of the Act. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent, as stated supra, are placed on record. This appeal is allowed in terms of the judgment dated April 1, 2013, passed in I. T. A. No. 1344 of 2006 (CIT v. Manipal Academy of Higher Education 2013 357 ITR 114 (Karn , setting aside the order passed by the assessing authority, the Appellate Commissioner and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal respectively and the matter stands remitted back to the assessing authority. It is needless to clarify that the remaining substantial questions of law raised in the memorandum of appeal are left open and it is the duty of the assessing authority to consider the same after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties afresh and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment dated April 1, 2013 passed in I. T. A. No. 1344 of 2006 by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in CIT v. Manipal Academy of Higher Education 2013 357 ITR 114. All the contentions urged by both the parties are left open.


JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by N. K. Patil J.-In this appeal, appellants are questioning correctness of order dated June 26, 2008, bearing COB. No. 24/Bang/2008 (in I. T. A. No. 415/Bang/2008), on file of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, confirming order passed by Appellate Commissioner and confirm order passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore. In this case, only substantial question of law to be considered is, whether appellate authorities were correct in holding that relinquishment of right in partnership firm, Bangalore Housing Development and Investment (Morzaria Housing Complex), by assessee and receipt of consideration of Rs. 33,66,99,989 would not amount to transfer and no capital gains tax is leviable and whether it is independent of exemption under section 10(23C)(via) of Act. We have heard learned counsel appearing for appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent. During course of submission, counsel appearing for appellants, submitted that, in light of judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this court dated April 1, 2013, passed in I. T. A. No. 1344 of 2006 in case of CIT v. Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE) [2013] 357 ITR 114 (Karn), this appeal may be disposed of setting aside order passed by Appellate Commissioner and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and also order passed by assessing authority to enable original authority to consider matter afresh in accordance with law, in light of order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this court dated April 1, 2013, passed in I. T. A. No. 1344 of 2006 (CIT v. Manipal Academy of Higher Education) [2013] 357 ITR 114 (Karn) and also relevant provisions of Act and Rules where exemption given to respondent is sustainable in law. In reply to submission made by learned counsel appearing for appellants, learned counsel appearing for respondent Sri S. Parthasarathi fairly submitted and not disputed judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this court dated April 1, 2013, passed in I. T. A. No. 1344 of 2006 (CIT v. Manipal Academy of Higher Education [2013] 357 ITR 114 (Karn)) and he fairly submits that submission made by counsel appearing for appellants, as stated supra, may be placed on record and this appeal may be disposed of, in terms of judgment passed in I. T. A. No. 1344 of 2006 dated April 1, 2013, (CIT v. Manipal Academy of Higher Education [2013] 357 ITR 114 (Karn)) leaving open all contentions urged by both parties. submissions made by learned counsel appearing for appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent, as stated supra, are placed on record. This appeal is allowed in terms of judgment dated April 1, 2013, passed in I. T. A. No. 1344 of 2006 (CIT v. Manipal Academy of Higher Education [2013] 357 ITR 114 (Karn)), setting aside order passed by assessing authority, Appellate Commissioner and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal respectively and matter stands remitted back to assessing authority. It is needless to clarify that remaining substantial questions of law raised in memorandum of appeal are left open and it is duty of assessing authority to consider same after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties afresh and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, in light of judgment dated April 1, 2013 passed in I. T. A. No. 1344 of 2006 by co-ordinate Bench of this court in CIT v. Manipal Academy of Higher Education [2013] 357 ITR 114 (Karn). All contentions urged by both parties are left open. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Medical Relief Society of South Kanara
Report Error