Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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