THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/779/2009HC KarnatakaKAHC01078104200909 March 2015Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 10A for the entire unit. The court also noted that the second issue regarding reopening of assessment was academic and did not require a decision.

What were the facts?

The appeal by the revenue concerns assessment year 1999-2000 and involves identical issues as previous appeals for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. These prior appeals were decided in favor of the assessee by a Division Bench of the High Court.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 10A for the entire unit. A secondary issue concerned the validity of the reopening of assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2015

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA

ITA NO.779/2009

BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD

.. APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.)

AND:

M/S WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS LTD PLOT NO.4, KADUGODI PLANTATION INDUSTRIAL AREA SADARAMANGALA BANGALORE.

.. RESPONDENT

(BY SMT S R ANURADHA, ADV.)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260- A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10.07.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.1032/BNG/2008

2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ODER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1032/BNG/2008 DATED 10.07.2009 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri K V Aravind, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs S R Anuradha, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.

2.

This appeal relates to the assessment year 1999-2000. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that the issue in this appeal is identical to the one involved in ITA Nos.391 and 392/2008 relating to the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998- 99 which have been decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.06.2014. Learned counsel

3 for the parties have also stated that this appeal can also be decided in terms of the said judgment.

3.

Accordingly, for the reasons given in the judgment and order dated 10.6.2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in ITA Nos.391/2008 c/w 392/2008 (The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Wipro G E Medical System Ltd.), the first question which is that:

(i) “The Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of the entire unit situated at Golden Enclave, Bangalore without examining the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer that admittedly the 3rd floor, Golden Enclave unit was granted permission earlier to 1.4.1994 and 2nd and 6th floor, Golden Enclave units were granted permission after 1.4.1994 and the eligibility under section 10 was available to those units commences prior to 1.4.1994”

4 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. As regards the second question is concerned i.e., (ii) “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the reopening of assessment is bad in law on the basis of the order passed by it for the assessment year 1997-98 and 1998-99 without independently examining the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment” in our view, the same is only academic in nature and need not be decided.

5.

Appeal is accordingly dismissed to the extent as indicated above.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

brn

More judgments on Section 10A

All 2,147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →