Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.142/2014
BETWEEN
The Commissioner of Income-tax,
C R Building
Queens Road
Bangalore
The Income-Tax Officer
Ward-11(1)
Rashtrothana Bhavana
Nrupathunga Road
Bangalore.
.. APPELLANTS
(By Sri K V Aravind, Adv.)
AND
M/s e4e Health Care Business Services Private Limited No.17/9C, 17/4C Rupena Agrahara Hosur Road Bangalore-560 068.
.. RESPONDENT
This ITA/Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of order dated: 15.10.2013
2 passed in ITA No.193/Bang/2013, for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
Praying this Hon’ble Court to:
Formulate the substantial questions of law stated above.
Allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.193/Bang/2013 dated:15/10/2013 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Bangalore.
This ITA coming on for orders this day, VINEET SARAN J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the appellants.
This appeal has been filed raising following substantial question of law:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that carried forward losses cannot be set off before claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Act when benefit under Section 10A of the Act is a deduction?”
It is not disputed that the said question is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD., (341 ITR 385 (KAR) whereby the question has been answered in favour of the assessee against the revenue. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that no substantial question of law is required to be answered by this Court.
Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the appellants states that in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. YOKOGAWA (supra), appeal has been filed before the Apex Court, which has been admitted.
In the event revenue succeeds in the appeal before the Apex Court, the assessing authority shall pass consequential orders in terms of Section 260(IA) of the Income Tax Act and in accordance with law, so as to give effect to the judgment of the Apex Court.
With the aforesaid observations, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp