The CIT, Central Circle, Bangalore / The ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore v. Wipro Ltd
[Citation -2014-LL-1107-38]

Citation 2014-LL-1107-38
Appellant Name The CIT, Central Circle, Bangalore / The ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore
Respondent Name Wipro Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 07/11/2014
Assessment Year 1999-00
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags deduction of bad and doubtful debts • furnishing inaccurate particulars
Bot Summary: The assessee had claimed deduction of bad and doubtful debts and also royalty for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The assessing authority disallowed on the ground that unless the assessee establishes the said debt as bad and doubtful debts and royalty, it is not entitled to deduction. In the subsequent years as the debt became bad and doubtful and as in the previous years, the said benefit had not been granted, assessee s claim for bad and doubtful debt and royalty was allowed. Now, penalty was imposed on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars. The said order came to be set aside both by the First Appellate Authority as well 5 as the Tribunal on the ground when in the subsequent years the benefit has been granted, it is not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars and therefore, they have set aside the penalty. Even otherwise the said orders of the Appellate Authorities are just, proper and in accordance with law and therefore, we do not see any merit in these appeals.


1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014 PRESENT HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO.1044/2008 C/W. ITA NO.1045/2008 IN ITA NO 1044 OF 2008 BETWEEN 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2.THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE APPELLANTS (By Sri.JEEVAN J.NEERALGI ADV.) AND M/S WIPRO LTD DODDAKANNELLI SARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE 560 035 RESPONDENT (By Sri.RAJESH CHANDER KUMAR ADV.) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13-06-2008 PASSED IN ITA NO.655/BNG/2007, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: I. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN II. ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDER PASSED BY ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO. 655/BNG/2007 DATED 13-06-2008, CONFIRM ORDERS OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),BANGALORE. ITA NO 1045 OF 2008 BETWEEN 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 2.THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3) C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE ... APPELLANTS (By Sri.JEEVAN J.NEERALGI ADV.) 3 AND M/S WIPRO LTD DODDAKANNELLI SARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE 35 ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.RAJESH HANDER KUMAR ADV. ) THIS ITA FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13-06-2008 PASSED IN ITA NO. 654/BNG/2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-1999, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: I. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDER PASSED BY ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO. 654/BNG/2007 DATED 13-06-2008, CONFIRM ORDERS OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: 4 JUDGMENT These appeals are preferred by Revenue against orders passed by Tribunal as well First Appellate Authority which have set aside order passed by Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, imposing penalty. 2. assessee had claimed deduction of bad and doubtful debts and also royalty for assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. assessing authority disallowed on ground that unless assessee establishes said debt as bad and doubtful debts and royalty, it is not entitled to deduction. However, in subsequent years as debt became bad and doubtful and as in previous years, said benefit had not been granted, assessee s claim for bad and doubtful debt and royalty was allowed. Now, penalty was imposed on ground that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars. However, said order came to be set aside both by First Appellate Authority as well 5 as Tribunal on ground when in subsequent years benefit has been granted, it is not case of furnishing inaccurate particulars and therefore, they have set aside penalty. It is concurrent finding. Even otherwise said orders of Appellate Authorities are just, proper and in accordance with law and therefore, we do not see any merit in these appeals. Appeals are dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE. Sd/- JUDGE rs CIT, Central Circle, Bangalore / ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore v. Wipro Ltd
Report Error