COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAMSOFT TECHNOLGIES PVT. LTD.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 231D DAY OF MAY, 20 I 2 PRI..2SENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA I. T. A, No,69 OF 2012 BETWEEN 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) llI, BANGALORE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 1214). BAN GALORE. (Dv Sri. E... I. SANMATHI. ADVI AND M/S. RAMSOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.. SR DLX MAH OLP 22- CPOS Tp\ 1 BAJGALO.RE 560 01 .1.. THIS APPEAL IS FILED LArDER SEC.260-A. OF THE I T AC 1061 TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 3fl ‘ /50 1 P SFL N H’ NO 30 BANO/20 ETC ._1 I D. V. Shylendra Kumar J, deIive.red the following:

2 JUDGMENT flats appeal 1% in thc Rnenue against die orcici dated 30 11.2011 p.nsni b tile Income lax A1)j)(’liiLtC rribtin’il A lit in h b ingal e In ipp fi roct edrng No ILk o 1330/Bang, ?01 I idating to dtrnti1t yeel 2005 06. 2. The appellant h is nhI% 4 the Inilnuing substantial quc %tion ol I tw: Whether on the facts and in the nrcumslcinces ‘I the cnse. the It1T is nisttjlccl in lczu’ in clirectm 1 ‘ the :10 to calculate deduction trader &rtzon 1 OA withotit sertinq ofi the arried font cud businE loss and JEpreciatton “flhl)m’-.sIoIs o’ ‘r. F S’irrnatld Eiidr 1 ’ 1t inn,’ 1 in fo ht p’ nt (i I. iat flfl th lnbL;n *1 113% )e)—.( ; ifl.- nvtuttnrd ,rde, tuIIrAflth! the r 1 e tIl(’ts nta ‘I(Lftai Ii’ 1 ,P 1 ,—i ‘). (j(, ! I’ ‘ t1’ Ir’’c;n,e ‘ 1 ii a •.. 1, . 1 ; • ._ ‘ la—7 •1 . — I it.’ Al .1. —.. Ii (if, M/Axc Runes Seices PtIl&

3 Others In I EA No 78/2009 ieportrd in 2011 TIOL 7 11 HC’—Kar 11 and i hough lcw the said reison the quesnoil may have 1..’ be an%vered against the Revenue. ii thr earliei deeis’ ‘i 1’ to hr followed tlw nntttr ha big been carrie’ iurther to Supreme (‘unit ii a %peeial leave petitiol and nut ice having been iMsued to the respondent a’ see in the special leave petition It is necessary that t1’ appeal should be admitted and await 11w o’itc orne ni the decision of the Supreme Court In respect of simliar (piestloti. 4 The Surrtme hi irni in hi4 reça *‘it I t i T(1 It Ci lit fl1 1 1 £ 1 p i), 1 ouit his 1101 laid down 01 I rhoiJ uric tin sihis ‘ 1’i t1 Ii lid j) tTi 1 Sc 1) I Ih( I flfl i ill , I S @ ettlrd liFt 1 un 1 5031% IC Ii I

4 5. Therefore. following the earlier decision of this Court, we answer the question against the Revenue. The appeal is dismissed. I I Sd/ JUDGE 1 Sd! JUDGE Vb/ I I 4