THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALTAIR ENGINEERING INDIA (P) LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals were covered by a previous judgment of the same court. Therefore, the questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's decision allowing the assessee to claim deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had previously claimed deduction under Section 80HHC and the Revenue argued it was not a newly established undertaking eligible for Section 10A benefits.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 10A when it was previously claiming deduction under Section 80HHC and was not a newly established undertaking. The applicability of Section 10A in such circumstances.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- 6 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE v. MAXIM INDIA INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN (P) Ltd.5 citing202 Taxmann 365 · 2011 · HC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
INCOME TAX APPEAL No.327 of 2011 c/w INCOME TAX APPEAL No.59 of 2012
IN ITA No.327/2011
BETWEEN
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,
BANGALORE.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME-TAX,
CIRCLE-11(1), C.R. BUILDING,
QUEENS ROAD,
BANGALORE.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
AND
M/S. ALTAIR ENGINEERING INDIA P. LTD., C/O. GOWTHAMA & COMPANY,
No.23/57, 41ST CROSS, EAST END C MAIN ROAD, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 069.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.K. CHYTHANYA AND SRI TATA KRISHNA, ADVOCATES)
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14/03/2011 PASSED IN ITA No.1184/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 2007, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA No.1184/BANG/2010 DATED 14/03/2011 CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE.
IN ITA No.59/2012
BETWEEN
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
C.R. BUILDING,
QUEENS ROAD,
BANGALORE.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-11(1),
C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,
BANGALORE.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
AND
M/S. ALTAIR ENGINEERING INDIA (P) LTD., MERCURY 2B BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, PRESTIGE TECH PARK, SARJAPUR, MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 087.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.K. CHYTHANYA, ADVOCATE)
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11/10/2011 PASSED IN ITA No.290/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 2008, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA No.290/BANG/2011 DATED 11/10/2011 CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE.
THESE INCOME TAX APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Heard.
ITA No.327 of 2011 was admitted to consider the following two substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee which was claiming deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act upto A.Y. 2003-04 is entitled to claim deduction under Section 10A of the Act in respect of a sum of Rs.8,02,31,540/- during the current assessment year 2006-07 as the Tribunal had allowed similar relief for the assessment year 2004-05?
Whether the Tribunal was correct in proceeding to grant relief under Section 10A of the Act even though the assessee was not a newly established industrial undertaking, or which began to manufacture or produce computer software on or after 01.04.2003 nor did assessee had permission to start in ETLTP, STP or SEZ zone or the permission of the Central Government and was prohibited to claim exemption as its business was already in existence?”
ITA No.59 of 2012 was admitted to consider the following two substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee which was claiming deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act upto A.Y. 2003-04 is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 10A of the Act in respect of a sum of Rs.2,69,38,496/- during the current assessment year 2007-08 as the Tribunal had allowed similar relief for the assessment year 2004-05?
Whether the Tribunal was correct in proceeding to grant relief u/s.10A of the Act even though the assessee was not a newly established industrial undertaking, or which began to manufacture or produce computer software on or after 01.04.2003 nor did assessee had permission to start in ETLTP, STP or SEZ zone or the permission of the Central Government and was prohibited to claim exemption as its business was already in existence?”
It is submitted that both the substantial questions of law raised in both these appeals are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. MAXIM INDIA INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN (P) Ltd. reported in (2011) 202 Taxman 365 (Karnataka). In view of the submission made, both the substantial questions of law raised in both these appeals are held in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
The substantial questions of law are accordingly answered.
The appeals are disposed off.
SD/-
SD/- JUDGE
JUDGE
More judgments on Section 10A
- Ahaguru Education Technology Private… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1993/CHNY/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- M/S. Aradhyaa Infra & Holdings Pvt. Ltd… vs ITO, Corp. Ward-1(1), ChennaiITA 1793/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Tech Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT Cir 2(3), MumbaiITA 7487/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: Disposed24 Aug 2026AY 2008-09
- D.C.I.T. Circle 3(3), Mumbai vs Rbs Business Services P. Ltd., MumbaiITA 4467/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2007-08
- Rbs Business Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT Cir 3(3), MumbaiITA 4306/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026