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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
I.T.A. NO.50 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE-12(1), JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE-560085. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, A/W SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVS.)
AND:
M/S. MIND TREE LTD. (FORMERLY M/S. MIND TREE CONSULTING PRIVATE LTD.), GLOBAL VILLAGE RVCE POST, MYLASANDRA MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHYTHANYA K.K. ADV.) - - -
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14-09-2012
PASSED IN ITA NO.1204/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1204/BANG/2011 DATED 14/9/2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-12(1), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel along with Mr.M.Dilip, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Chythanya K.K., learned counsel for the assessee.
This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.05.2013 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the deduction u/s. 10B of the Act, is to be computed without setting off of brought
forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation without taking into consideration the amendment to Section 10B(1) w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and recorded a perverse finding.”
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the substantial question of law has been answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD.’
(2017) 291 CTR 1 (SC).
In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE