Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ge India Technology Centre P Ltd on 7 July, 2014
Bench: N.Kumar, B.Manohar
1 ITA 1037/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JULY, 2014
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
Income-Tax Appeal No : 1037 of 2008
BETWEEN:
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax
Circle - 11(2), C.R. Building,
Queens Road, Bangalore.
...Appellants
(By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate)
AND:
M/s. GE India Technology Centre P.Ltd.,
John F. Welch Technology Centre,
Export Promotion Industrial Park,
Phase-2, Hoodi Village, Whitefield,
Bangalore - 560 066.
...Respondent
(Bys Sri Suman K.Suresh, Adv. For
M/s.Universal Legal)
2 ITA 1037/2008
This ITA filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising
out of order dated 09.05.2008 passed in ITA No.869/BNG/2007,
for the Assessment year 2003-2004, praying to (i) formulate the
substantial questions of law stated therein; (ii) allow the appeal
and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA
No.869/BNG/2007, dated 09.05.2008 confirm the orders of the
Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 11(2),
Bangalore.
This ITA coming on for hearing this day, N. KUMAR J
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order passed by the Tribunal which has held that the assessee would be entitled to set off against the losses sustained in Section 10A of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act') by setting off the interest income and rental income by invoking Sections 70 and 71 of the Act.
2. The very same question was the subject matter of decision of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED reported in (2012) 204 Taxman 305 (Kar). After 3 ITA 1037/2008 elaborate discussion, this Court has answered the said question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. It is submitted that the said judgment is now challenged before the Supreme Court and is pending consideration.
3. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the judgment has no application and in fact the said judgment is to be applied in favour of the revenue. We do not find any substance in this submission.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to the revenue to seek for revival of this appeal in the event the judgment of the Supreme Court is rendered in their favour.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE dh*