Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
I.T.A. NO.125/2018 BETWEEN:
PR. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX-7
BMTC COMPLEX, KORMANGALA
BANGALORE.
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE-12(5),
BANGALORE.
.... APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANMATHI.E.I, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S.WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE LTD. PLOT NO.4, KADUGODI INDL. AREA SADARMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 067 PAN : AAACW1685J
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.R.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE) - - -
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED :18.08.2017 PASSED IN IT(TP)A.NO.1392/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-2008, PRAYINJG TO (1) DECIDE
THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 18.08.2017 PASED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'B' BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE'S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN IT(TP) A NO.1392/BANG/2013, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-2008 & GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, V. SRISHANANDA. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short] preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this court vide order dated 25.02.2019 with the following substantial question of law:
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting- aside the reallocation of expenses made by the assessing authority attributable to EHTP-I and EHTP-II units as against the claim of the assessee which was on the basis of the materials available on record which proved that assessee
made allocation to make 10A claim to a larger extent?"
At the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee has relied on the judgment delivered by the co-ordinate bench of this court in ITA No.435/2011, where the subject matter of the appeal was of the year 2006-07, wherein an identical substantial question of law in respect of the very same assessee was held against the revenue and in favour of the assessee and therefore, in terms of the order passed in the said appeal, this appeal can be disposed of as the present appeal is between the same parties but for the assessment year 2007-08.
The learned counsel for the revenue did not dispute the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court passed in ITA No.435/2011 decided on 12th June, 2020.
We have given our anxious consideration to the facts involved in the present case and the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this court in ITA No.435/2011 decided on 12th June, 2020. Since the issue involved in the present appeal is in respect of the year 2007-08, the
judgment delivered in ITA No.435/2011 is applicable as mutatis mutandis for this appeal also.
In view of the aforesaid submission and for the reasons assigned in the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in ITA No.435/2011 decided on 12.06.2020, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Hence, the following order is passed:
Accordingly, the appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
PL*