THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/279/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01033451201211 June 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue, following a Supreme Court judgment. The Tribunal's decision that the Assessing Officer had applied their mind was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that held the Assessing Officer had applied their mind while passing the assessment order. The core issue was whether unabsorbed brought forward depreciation should be set off against total income for computing deduction under Section 10A.

What were the issues?

Whether unabsorbed brought forward depreciation should be set off against total income for Section 10A deduction and if the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. 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 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

I.T.A. NO.280 OF 2012 C/W I.T.A. NO.279 OF 2012

IN I.T.A. NO.280 OF 2012

BETWEEN

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE

2.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, CIRCLE-1 C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI DILIP, ADV. FOR SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADV.)

AND

M/S. INFOSYS BPO LTD., 26/3, 26/4 & 26/6 ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE-560100. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 16/03/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.1026/BANG/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-2006, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1026/BANG/2009 DATED 16/03/2012 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE.

IN I.T.A. NO.279 OF 2012

BETWEEN

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.

2.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I CIRCLE-1, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI DILIP, ADV. FOR SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.)

AND

M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD., 26/3, 26/4 & 26/6 ELECTRONIC CITY HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560100. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 16/03/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.698/BANG/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.698/BANG/2009 DATED 16/03/2012 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMNG THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE.

THESE APEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Mr.Dilip, learned counsel for Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent.

2.

These appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) have been filed by the revenue which were admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated

04.02.2013 in ITA No.280/2012 and 15.01.2013 in ITA No.279/2012 on the following substantial questions of law:

a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act is not correct as the Assessing Officer has applied his mind while passing the order of assessment, without taking into consideration that the Assessing Officer has not set off the unabsorbed brought forward depreciation from total income for computing deduction u/s.10A of the Act?

b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in not taking into consideration that the non-set off of unabsorbed brought forward depreciation against the total income for computing deduction u/s.10A of the Act, was contrary to the provisions of section 10A and hence the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence invoking of section 263 was in accordance with law?

3.

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the substantial questions of law involved in these appeals have been answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD.’ [(2017) 77 TAXMANN.COM 41 (SC)].

4.

In view of the aforesaid submission and in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 10A

All 2,147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →