IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 357 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) 5th FLOOR, BMTC BUIDLING 80 FEET ROAD,KORMANAGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUIDLING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANAGALA BENGALURU – 560 095. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND K. V, ADVOCATE) AND:
M/S. INFOSYS LTD., ELECTRONIC CITY HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 100. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 10.11.2017 PASSED IN IT[TP]A NO. 942/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-
2007, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, PRAYING TO (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE.
(II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A NO. 942/BANG/2015 DATED 10.11.2017, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, 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 ETC,.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in allowing in setting aside re- computation of section 10A made by assessing authority by following the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in case of CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd.?”
3. However, the said question of law has been answered in HCL Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (2018)91 taxman.com460 (SC), in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Hence, the substantial question of law raised in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE nv