Commissioner of Income-tax, Mangaluru v. ICDS Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0818-13]

Citation 2020-LL-0818-13
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Mangaluru
Respondent Name ICDS Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 18/08/2020
Assessment Year 1989-90
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags sale of land • book profits
Bot Summary: Mr.S.Parthasarathi, learned counsel for the respondent entered appearance through video conferencing. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on 15.01.2013 to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law by holding that the capital profits on sale of land, which are credited to the capital reserves account in the balance 3 sheet, are not to be included under the book profits for the purpose of Section 115J 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law by holding that the Assessing Officer has no power and jurisdiction to bring to tax the income which is includible under the book profit but not included under the book profit in the audited statement of accounts 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the substantial questions of law which arise for consideration in this appeal have already been answered against the revenue by a Bench of this Court in SRI HARIRAM HOTELS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX AND ANOTHER in ITA No.53/2009 decided on 16.12.2015. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the substantial questions of law framed by this Court in this 4 appeal are also answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.


1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.341 OF 2012 BETWEEN: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS ATTAVAR, MANGALURU-575001. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S. ICDS LTD., SYNDICATE HOUSE P.B.NO.46, UPENDRA NAGAR MANIPAL-576119. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) --- THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 04-07-2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.1278/BANG/2011, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. 2 II. SET ASIDE COMMON APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04-07-2012 PASSED BY ITAT, BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR IN ITA NO.1278/BANG/2011, IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for appellant entered appearance through video conferencing. Mr.S.Parthasarathi, learned counsel for respondent entered appearance through video conferencing. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act , for short) has been preferred by revenue which was admitted by Bench of this Court on 15.01.2013 to consider following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is justified in law by holding that capital profits on sale of land, which are credited to capital reserves account in balance 3 sheet, are not to be included under book profits for purpose of Section 115J? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is justified in law by holding that Assessing Officer has no power and jurisdiction to bring to tax income which is includible under book profit but not included under book profit in audited statement of accounts? 3. When matter was taken up today, learned counsel for revenue fairly submitted that substantial questions of law which arise for consideration in this appeal have already been answered against revenue by Bench of this Court in SRI HARIRAM HOTELS (P) LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX AND ANOTHER in ITA No.53/2009 decided on 16.12.2015. 4. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, substantial questions of law framed by this Court in this 4 appeal are also answered against revenue and in favour of assessee. In result, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV Commissioner of Income-tax, Mangaluru v. ICDS Ltd
Report Error