1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA I.T.A. NO.407 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE 560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2) BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV., FOR SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: SRI. C. RAMAIAH REDDY NO. 19-22, "SANDEEP NILAYAM" 1ST CROSS, SECTOR-C, VIBHUTHIPURA RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY BASAVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 037. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. ADV., A/W SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) --- THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10/04/2015 PASSED IN ITA 2 NO.1779/BANG/2013, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, PRAYING THAT THIS HON BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (I) DECIDE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY HON BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. (II) SET ASIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 10/4/2015 PASSED BY ITAT, C BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.ITA NO.1779/BANG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act , for short) have been filed by revenue. subject matter of 2012-13. appeal was admitted by bench of this 01.03.2016 on following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, tribunal was correct in law in holding that provisions of Section 45(2) and 49(1) of Income Tax Act are not applicable in respect to property received by assessee on 3 partial partition of Hindu Undivided Family and thereby deleting long term capital gain of Rs.13,16,08,600/- and short term capital gain of Rs.77,29,09,600/- for Assessment year 2011-12 and long term capital gain of Rs.27,95,22,234/- and short term capital gain of RS.7,41,04,606/- for Assessment year 2012-13? (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, tribunal was correct in law in holding that cost of properties received in partial partition of HUF to be adopted as claimed by assessee under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act as deduction while computing income under head Profit and Gains of Business or Profession , ignoring fact that assessee did not incur any cost on such properties other than cost incurred by HUF? 4 2. It is agreed by learned counsel for parties that answer to substantial questions of law involved in instant case would depend on decision of this court which would be rendered in I.T.A.No.318/2012. Since, by way of judgment passed today in ITA No.318/2012, it has been held that no substantial questions of law arise for determination and appeal has already been dismissed. Therefore, for reasons assigned in aforesaid appeal, this appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(2), Bangalore v. C. Ramaiah Reddy