THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. M/S WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEM LTD

ITA/2834/2005

AI Insights

The case involves two income tax appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax against M/s. Wipro GE Medical System Ltd for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The appeals were filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the orders passed by the ITAT which confirmed the orders of the Appellate Commissioner. The main legal contention revolved around substantial questions of law which had been previously addressed in similar cases involving the same assessee. The High Court of Karnataka, referencing judgments from the Apex Court and various High Courts, found that the substantial questions of law had already been answered in favor of the assessee in related cases, leading to the dismissal of these appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700989 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S R ANURADHA
• Assessee Lawyers: E SANMATHI INDRAKUMAR
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Year; Income Tax; ITAT; Substantial questions of law
• Section: 260-A

Judgement Text

"- - 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2834/2005 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 776/2006 IN ITA NO.2834/2005 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, C.R Building, Queens Road, Bangalore – 560 001. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, C.R Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. ..APPELLANTS (By Sri E. Sanmathi Indrakumar, Adv.) IN ITA NO.776/2006 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, C.R Building, Queens Road, Bangalore – 560 001. - - 2 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle – I (3), C.R Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. ..APPELLANTS (By Sri E. Sanmathi Indrakumar, Adv.) AND: M/s. Wipro GE Medical System Ltd Plot No.4, Kadugodi Plantation, Industrial Area, Sadaramangala, Bangalore-67. ..RESPONDENT (common in both appeals) (By Smt. S.R. Anuradha, Adv.) I.T.A.No.2834/2005 is filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 16-03-2005 passed in ITA No.116/Ban/2002 for the Assessment Year 1998-99, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i. formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, ii. allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT in ITA No.116/Ban/2002 dated 16-03-2005 confirming the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Bangalore in the interest of justice and equity. I.T.A.No.776/2006 is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 18-11-2005 passed in ITA No.714/Bang/2003, for the Assessment year 1999-2000, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: iii. formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, - - 3 iv. allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.714/Bang/2003 dated 18-11- 2005 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner & confirm the order passed by the Dy., Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity. These Appeals coming on for Hearing this day, KUMAR J., delivered the following: J U D G M E N T These two appeals are filed against the order of the Tribunal in respect of the very same assessee for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The questions of law that arise for consideration are as set out in the memorandum of appeals and accordingly, the appeals were admitted to consider the said questions of law, as is clear from the order sheet. 2. These appeals are of the year 2006. Similar questions of law did arise for consideration in assessee’s appeal for the period anterior to these appeals. Subsequently, in a batch of appeals, this Court had an occasion to consider all the substantial questions of law, which are framed in this case and all the substantial questions of law have been answered relying on the judgments of the Apex Court and - - 4 various other High Courts. Though these questions did arise for consideration on the date the appeals were admitted as on today all those questions of law are already answered and therefore, over and again answering the said questions does not arise. 3. In that view of the matter, these appeals are disposed of, adopting the finding recorded in the assessee’s appeals in other connected appeals where all these substantial questions of law have been answered in favour of the assessee’s sister concern and against the Revenue. We do not see any substance in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE KNM/- "