Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF APRIL 2014
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR
ITA.NO.350/2012
BETWEEN
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2), C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.,)
AND
M/S 24/7 CUSTOMER PVT LTD EMBASSY GOLF LINK, BUSINESS PARK CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE OFF. INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560071
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K R VASUDEVAN, ADV.,)
THIS ITA FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22/05/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.268/BANG/2010, 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
2 ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.268/BANG/2010 DATED 22/05/2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(2), BANGALORE.
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, Dilip B. Bhosale J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PC:
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, at the outset, invited our attention to the judgments of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Yokogawa India Ltd, in ITA No.78/2011 & 918/2011 decided on 9.8.2011 and Tata Elxsi Ltd., [349 ITR 98 (Kar)] and submitted that the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are squarely covered by those judgments and they deserve to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in terms thereof.
Having confronted with this, Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-revenue submitted that the revenue has filed Special Leave
3 Petitions in the Supreme Court against the aforementioned judgments of this Court and the appeals are pending. He, however, fairly states that this appeal may be disposed of in terms of those judgments with direction to the Assessing Officer to pass consequential order only after SLPs/Appeals are disposed of by the Supreme Court. In other words, he submitted that the Assessing Officer may be directed to pass consequential order in the light of the order of the Supreme Court that will be passed in the abovementioned SLPs/Appeals.
Learned counsel for the respondent, has no objection for making such observations and for disposal of this appeal.
In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal in terms of the judgments of this Court in Yokogawa India Ltd, and Tata Elxsi Ltd., answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, with direction to the Assessing Officer to pass consequential order under Section 260-1A
4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned SLPs/Appeals that will be passed in due course. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE TL