Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
I.T.A. NO.5 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIT(A)
C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE-11(5), C.R. BUILDING
QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.
... APPELLANTS (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.)
AND:
M/S. JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD., JINDAL NAGAR TUMKUR ROAD BANGALORE-560073. ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADV., FOR MR. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,) - - -
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 4.9.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.448/BANG/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.448/BANG/2009 DATED 4/9/2009 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Smt.Jinitha Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent. Appeal is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) which has been filed by the revenue, was admitted by a Bench of this Court by order dated 26.07.2011 on the following substantial question of law:
“Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that only the three profit making power generating units of the assessee should be taken into account and not the loss making unit in computing the total income of the assessee for its eligible business to allow deduction u/s 80IA of the Act”
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by an order dated 27.05.2011 passed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER Vs. SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATIONS P. LTD.
(2012) 349 ITR 245 (KAR).
In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the revenue was unable to dispute the aforesaid legal proposition.
Therefore, the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE