Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ge India Technology Centre Pvt Ltd on 4 July, 2014
Bench: N.Kumar, B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 4th of July 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR
ITA No. 950/2007
BETWEEN:
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Central Circle,
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 Pvt. Limited
John F. Welch Technology Centre,
Export Promotion Industrial Park,
Phase-2, Hoodi Village,
2
Whitefield Road,
Bangalore - 560066. ...Respondent
(By Sri S. S. Naganand, Sr. Adv. for
Sri B.M. Prakash, M/s. Lawyers Inc.
This ITA filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising
out of order dated 03.08.2007 passed in ITA No.480/Bang/2006,
for the Assessment year 2002-2003, 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.480/Bang/2006, dated 03.08.2007 confirming the order 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 elaborate discussion, this Court has 3 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 VP