Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2015
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
I.TA.NO.406/2014
BETWEEN:
The Commissioner of Income-Tax
C.R.Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore.
The Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax, Circle-11(4),
Rashtrothana Bhavan,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore. ..APPELLANT (BY Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.,)
AND:
M/s. Informatics (India) Ltd., No.194, R.V.Road, Basavangudi, Bangalore-560 004.
..RESPONDENT
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 16.4.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1504/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10.
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSSION THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The brief facts are that the assessee had filed his return claiming exemption under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘Act’) which was denied to the assessee by the assessing officer as well as the appellate authority. The Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated 16.04.2014 has held that in the interest of justice, the claim of the assessee, should be examined afresh by the assessing officer under Section 10A of the Act in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal in its order. The Assessing Officer has thus been directed to decide the issue afresh after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
This appeal has been filed with a prayer to decide the following substantial question of law:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in directing the assessing authority to examine whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10A even though it had originally made a
claim of deduction under Section 10B, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 80A(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and also contrary to the decision of the High Court in the case of BAEHL Software Ltd. In ITA No.136/2010 dated 1/3/2011”?
We have heard Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
Mr. Aravind, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in ITA No.136/2010 in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax & another –vs- M/s.BAEHAL Software Limited, the order made by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the question be answered in favour of the revenue.
The assessment year in question in the aforesaid case was 2004-05. The assessment year in question in the present case is 2009-10. A proviso was added in Section 10A by the Finance Act, 2005 w.e.f. 01.04.2006. In view of the insertion of the proviso the law laid down in the case of BAEHAL Software Limited, would not applicable to the facts of the present case,
which relates to assessment year 2009-10. As such, we do not find that the said substantial question of law requires determination by this Court. The appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE