COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs INDIAN METALS and FERR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

I.T.A. NO.19 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.R.BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE-11(4)

RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD

BANGALORE

... APPELLANTS

(By Sri.DILIP, ADV. FOR SRI.K.V.ARAVIND)

AND:

M/s. INFOSYS BPO LTD. NO.26/3, 26/4, 26/6 KANNAPPA AGRAHARA ELECTRONIC CITY HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 052

... RESPONDENT

(By Sri.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - -

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13-08-2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.1517/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN

ITA NO.1517/BANG/2012 DATED 13/08/2013 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4) BANGALORE.

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. Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent.

This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2015 on the following substantial question of law:

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the order passed giving effect to the directions issued under Section 263 of the Act is not sustainable, when such order of the tribunal setting aside the order under Section 263 of the Act was pending in appeal before this Hon’ble Court and recorded perverse finding?

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the substantial question of law involved in this appeal has been answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD.’ [(2017) 77 TAXMANN.COM 41 (SC)].

In view of the aforesaid submission and in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the substantial

question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIAN METALS and FERR