THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SOFTBRANDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ON THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BELLUNKE

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.239 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA

BENGALURU – 560 095.

CIRCLE-11(4), PRESENT ADDRESS

CIRCLE-3(1)(1)

2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA

BENGALURU – 560 095.

… APPELLANTS (BY SRI.ARAVIND K.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S.SOFTBRANDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW INFORE BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED) NO.93/32, PRESTIGE OBLISQ

3/32, KASTURBA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 25.10.2017 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO.104/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A NO.104/BANG/2014 DATED 25.10.2017 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

*****

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the first substantial question of law that would arise for consideration in this appeal is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-III

VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED reported in [2018] 93 TAXMANN.COM 33 (SC). That the second substantial question of law that would arise for consideration in this appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE VS. SOFTBRANDS INDIA (P) LTD., reported in [2018] 94 TAXMANN.COM 426 (KAR). Hence, he pleads that this appeal be dismissed in terms of the aforesaid judgments.

Sd/- Sd/-

JUDGE JUDGE

Prs*