Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.345 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
LTU
JSS TOWERS
BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
LTU
JSS TOWERS
100 FT RING ROAD
BANASHANKARI III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. NO.24, SALARPURIA ARENA HOSUR MAIN ROAD ADUGODI BANGALORE - 560 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PERCY PARDIWALLA SR. ADV. SRI.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - -
2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22.01.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1059/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, PRAYING TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1059/BANG/2013 DATED 22.01.2015 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2016 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the tribunal was correct in deleting the addition made on account of depreciation on intangible assets without appreciating that the assessee had failed to identify the assets on which depreciation has been claimed?
3 (ii) Whether the tribunal was correct in deleting the addition made on account of deprecation on intangible assets which was part of the purchase consideration paid for acquisition of a unit when the same is not allowable under the provisions of the Act? 2. For the reasons assigned in the judgment passed by us today in I.T.A.No.250/2011, the substantial questions of law framed by a bench of this court is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss