INFOSYS LTD., vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/279/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01004786201820 September 2021Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals were squarely covered by a ruling of the Apex Court. The Revenue could not dispute this position.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Infosys Ltd., filed appeals against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeals raised substantial questions of law concerning the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.

What were the issues?

Whether the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee are covered by the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI I.T.A.No.281/2018 C/W I.T.A. No.279/2018 BETWEEN:

INFOSYS LTD., ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR ROAD BENGALURU-560 100 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT-TAXATION MR.P.PRAKASH PAN: AAACI4798L

… APPELLANT (COMMON) [BY MISS MANASA ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SURYANARAYANA T., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)] AND:

1.

THE ADDITIONAL

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

RANGE-11, BENGALURU.

BMTC BUILDING

KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK

BENGALURU-560 085.

2.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME-TAX-1

BMTC BUILDING

KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK

BENGALURU-560 085.

… RESPONDENTS (COMMON)

[BY SRI.ARAVIND K.V., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.281/2018 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:10.11.2017 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.799/BANG/2015 (ANNEXURE-C) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO 1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE, 2) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED:10.11.2017 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.799/BANG/2015 (ANNEXURE-C), TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED HEREIN; AND 3) PASS SUCH OTHER OR SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.279/2018 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 10.11.2017 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NOS.102 & 233/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO 1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE, 2) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED:10.11.2017 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NOS. 102 & 233/BANG/2013

(ANNEXURE-C), TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED HEREIN; AND 3) PASS SUCH OTHER OR SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Learned counsel for the appellant - assessee submits that the substantial questions of law raised herein are squarely covered by the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax and another reported in (2021) 432 ITR 471 (SC).

2.

Learned counsel for the respondents – Revenue could not dispute the same.

3.

In view of the aforesaid, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE Psg*

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →