THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S GOPALAN ENTERPRISES

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH 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.10 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIRCLE-11(3), R.P. BHAVAN

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. GOPALAN ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.5, RICHMOND ROAD NO.48, MUSEUM ROAD BANGALORE-560025. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S.R. ANURADHA, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 18-07-2014

2 PASSED IN ITA NO.924/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.924/BANG/2013 DATED 18-07-2014 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(3), BANGALORE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Smt.S.R.Anuradha, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. 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. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.12.2015 to consider the following substantial questions of law:

3 i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction under section 80IA(4)(iii) even though the conditions laid down by the Ministry of Commerce for the same have not been fulfilled by the assessee as noted by the assessing officer after physical verification of the premises and recorded perverse finding. ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in placing reliance on the order of Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in the case of M/s. Piramal Projects Pvt. Ltd., (139 ITJ 233) and held that "unit" means separate floor, without appreciating that the intent of Legislature is to encourage the creation of more businesses for the economy and not creation of more floors in the building and recorded perverse finding. 3. For the reasons assigned in the judgment dated 09.11.2020 passed in ITA No.3/2015, we are left with no option but to quash the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is not necessary to answer the substantial questions of law. The Tribunal shall decide the matter

4 afresh and shall after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, shall record a finding whether the assessee has complied with the conditions laid down in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 and whether the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. In the result, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV