Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2015
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA
ITA NO.770/2009
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME-TAX C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,)
AND:
M/S.ALATAIR ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD., MERCURY, 2B BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, PRESTIGE TECH PARK, SARJAPUR MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560 087. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.K.CHYTHANYA, ADV.)
THIS ITA IS FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 3.7.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.1350/BNG/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, PRAYING TO:
I. FORMUALTE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN,
II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1350/BNG/2008, DATED 3.7.2009, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal was admitted on the following two substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the order of assessment is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind and has reduced telecommunication charges from the export turnover while granting relief u/s.10A of the Act?
Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the order of assessment is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue when the Assessing Officer has granted deduction u/s.10A
3 of the Act for the first time during the current assessment year without satisfying that conditions stipulated u/s.10A of the Act has been fulfilled by the assessee?
We have heard Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Counsel for the appellants as well as Sri K.K.Chythanya, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Learned Counsel for the parties have jointly stated that the second question involved in this case is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Expert Outsource (P.) Ltd., (2013) 358 ITR 518. In the said case, the second question has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. As such, for the reasons given in the judgment in the case of Expert Outsource (P.) Ltd., (supra), we answer the second question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. In view of the second question having been answered in favour of the assessee, the first question becomes academic in nature and in our opinion, need not be answered and the same may be considered in a suitable case subsequently.
Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JT/-