THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. M/S CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS & MANAGEMENT

ITA/808/2007

AI Insights

The case involves multiple Income Tax Appeals (ITAs) filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income Tax Officer against M/s. CGI Information Systems And Management Consultants Private Ltd. The appeals were based on substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation of tax provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court of Karnataka referenced its earlier decision in Samsung Electronics, which covered similar legal questions. Both parties acknowledged that the tax effect involved in the appeals was less than Rs.10 lakhs, which typically would lead to dismissal under Instruction No.3/2011. However, the court decided to proceed with the appeals in light of the precedent set by the Samsung Electronics case, directing that the matter be kept pending until the Supreme Court's final decision on the related Special Leave Petition (SLP).

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700979 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax & Another V/s. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. - And others (2011)64 DTR Judgments 178
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K S RAMABHADRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Keywords: Income Tax; Pending SLP; Substantial questions of law; Tax effect; Tax effect; Samsung Electronics Case
• Section: 268A; 260A; 260(1A)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR I.T.A. No.808/2007 C/W. I.T.A. NOS.809/2007 & 810/2007 BETWEEN : 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. 2. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward – 19(1), Bangalore. …APPELLANTS (Common in all) (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.) AND : M/s.CGI Information Systems And Management Consultants Private Ltd., No.38, - 2 - Naganathapura, Electronics City Post, Bangalore – 68. …RESPONDENT (Common in all) (By Sri.K.S.Ramabhadran, Adv.) . . . . These I.T.As. are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) allow the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in I.T.A. Nos. 982/Bang/2005, 983/BNG/2005 and 441/Bang/2006 respectively dated 15.06.2007 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner, Bangalore in the interest of justice and equity. These I.T.As. coming on for hearing, this day, Dilip B.Bhosale, J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for appellant states that the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax & Another V/s. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. - 3 - And others (2011)64 DTR Judgments 178. He further submits that the judgment of this Court in Samsung Electronics (supra) is carried by the assessee therein to the Supreme Court and the SLP is now pending for admission. 3. There is no dispute that the Supreme Court has not passed any interim order in the SLP. Our attention was invited to another SLP bearing (Civil) No.396/2012 filed by M/s. IBM India Ltd., wherein the questions raised are similar. The Supreme Court has already granted leave in this SLP, but has specifically mentioned in the order “No stay”. 4. Mr. K.S.Ramabhadran, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submits that since tax effect in these three appeals is less than Rs.10 lakhs, the appeals deserve to be dismissed in view of Instruction No.3/2011 issued under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - 4 - 5. Having confronted with this, Mr.Aravind after taking us through the questions raised in these appeals submitted that they deserve to be answered in favour of the Revenue in view of the judgment of this Court in Samsung Electronics. We do find ourselves in agreement with Mr.Aravind. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee also has not disputed the submission made by Mr.Aravind. 6. Since it is not in dispute that all the questions raised in the present appeals are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Samsung Electronics, we dispose of these appeals also in terms of the said judgment. In other words, in Samsung Electronics, all the questions, as raised in the instant appeals, stand answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. We direct the Assessing Officer to pass consequential orders as contemplated under Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after the Supreme Court finally dispose of the SLP (Civil appeal) arising from the judgment of this Court in Samsung - 5 - Electronics. In other words, till then, the Assessing Officer shall keep the matter pending for passing consequential orders. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-assessee to seek revival of these appeals in the event, the Supreme Court remands the matter. Appeals are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SPS "