Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.228 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
LTU
JSS TOWERS
BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE - 11(4)
RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY COMPAQ COMPUTERS INDIA P. LTD.) NO.24, SALARPURIA ARENA HOSUR MAIN ROAD ADUGODI BANGALORE - 560 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PERCY PARDIWALLA SR.ADV. SRI.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - -
2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21.03.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.617/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, PRAYING TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.617/BANG/2010 DATED 21.03.2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2004-05. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2012 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that assessee is entitled to claim depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of intangible assets of Rs.2,87,05,957/- when the same is
3 not identified and is based on adhoc estimate basis and not on actual cost as per Section 43(1) of the Act? (ii) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in recording a finding that intangible assets valued at Rs.2,87,05,957/- qualifies for claiming deduction under Section 32 of the Act, when the assessee had not been identified the precise value attributable to the asset at the time of acquisition and when even the date of acquisition of the asset was not disclosed by the assessee? 2. For the reasons assigned in the judgment passed by us today in I.T.A.No.250/2011, the substantial questions of law framed by a bench of this court is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
4 In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss