Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.56 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III REVENUE, BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12(3), BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S SUBEX LIMITED UNIT-1, ADARSH TECH PARK, OUTER RING ROAD, DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 037. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI TATA KRISHNA & SRI S SHARATH, ADVOCATES)
2 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31.10.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.89/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN; SET ASIDE THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.01.2011 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.89/BANG/201.
*****
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal was admitted to consider two substantial question of law.
So far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, the same is covered by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL – III vs. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD., reported in [2018] 93 TAXMANN.COM 33 (SC). Hence, the first substantial question of law is held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
The second substantial question of law is covered by the Judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. KHESHMA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED., reported in [2016] 381 ITR 435(KARNATAKA). Hence, the second substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in terms of the aforesaid Judgment.
The substantial questions of law are accordingly answered.
The appeal is disposed off.
SD/- SD/- JUDGE
JUDGE
rsk/-