Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Aditya Birla Minacs It Service ... on 17 August, 2020
Bench: Alok Aradhe, H T Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
I.T.A. NO.176 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE-12(2), C.R. BUILDING
QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M. DILIP, A/W SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVS.)
AND:
M/S. ADITYA BIRLA MINACS IT SERVICE LTD.,
(FORMERLY PSI DATA SYSTEMS LTD.,)
2ND FLOOR, MILLENNIUM TOWERS
ITPL ROAD, BROOKEFIELDS
BANGALORE-560037.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVIRAJAA, ADV., FOR
SRI. LAKSHMIKUMARAA, ADV.,)
---
2
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.
ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10-02-2012
PASSED IN ITA NO.43/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2001-02 PRAYING TO:
I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW
STATED THEREIN.
II. SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA
NO.43/BANG/2011 DATED 10/02/2012, AND CONFIRMING
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12(2), BANGALORE.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Ravirajaa, learned counsel for the assessee entered appearance through video conferencing.
2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been preferred by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.01.2013 on the following substantial question of law. However, the hearing of the appeal was deferred as the special leave petitions were preferred before the Supreme Court.
3
"Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that loss of non STP units cannot be set off against profits of STP units while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act without taking into consideration amendment to Section 10A of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2001 wherein deduction u/s. 10A has to be allowed on the total income of the assessee i.e. by setting off of loss against income?"
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the substantial question of law has been answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD.' (2017) 291 CTR 1 (SC).
4. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is 4 answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RV