Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
I.T.A. NO.532 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
The Pr. Commissioner of
Income – tax, 5th Floor
BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road
Kormangala, Bengaluru-560095.
The Income-Tax Officer
Ward-11(1), Present Address
Ward- 2(1)(1), 2nd Floor, BMTC
Building, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala
Bengaluru – 560 095.
... Appellants
(By Sri K V Aravind, Advocate)
AND:
M/s.Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Levbel-II, `Prestige Obelisk’ Kasturba Road, Bengaluru.
... Respondent
(By Kamal Sawhney, Advocate for M/s.Kamath & Kamath)
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 8.1.2016 PASSED IN IT (TP)A NO.675/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08-ANNEXURE-D, PRAYING TO: (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE
(ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH IN IT(TP)A NO.675/BANG/2012 DATED 8.1.2016 ANNEXURE-D CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2(1)(1), BENGALURU
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri K V Aravind, learned counsel for the Revenue.
Sri Kamal Sawhney, learned counsel for the assessee.
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the assessment year 2007-2008.
The appeal was admitted on 11.12.2018 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified insetting aside the disallowance of Rs.3,87,19,625/- under Sectkion 40(a)(a) for
non-deduction of taxes under Section 195 of the I.T.Act even when the ingredients of the said sections are satisfied?
When the matter was takenup today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the substantial question of law has already been answered in favour of the assessee by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT –VS- GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD., (2011) 330 ITR 175 (Bom) as well as the decision of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –VS- HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBAL SOFT LTD. reported in (2017) 87 taxmann.com 182 (Karnataka).
The aforesaid submission could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue.
In view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT –vs- Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.
as well as the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs- Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd., (supra), the substantial question of law is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
BKM