1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA No.217/2015 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11(1) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE. .. APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND a/w SRI G KAMALADHAR, ADVs.) AND: M/s. ALPHA DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.24, 12TH FLOOR, SERVICE ROAD, DOMLUR 2ND STAGE EXTENSION, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE PAN : AAECA 3323P .. RESPONDENT 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22.01.2015 PASSED IN ITA No.1384/BANG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 PRAYING TO FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDERS PASSED BY INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA No.1384/BANG/2013 DATED 22.01.2015 CONFIRMING ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN,, J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by Revenue challenging order of Tribunal. Brief facts of case are that challenging order of Assessing Officer wherein benefit of depreciation was awarded, Revenue filed appeal before Tribunal, whereby Tribunal directed Assessing Officer to allow claim of assessee to certain extent for two assessment years, 2007-08 and 2008-09 as revenue expenditure and depreciation on certain amount. Tribunal has given certain directions after considering facts and 3 circumstances of case, which does not call for interference and thus no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE bkm COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-11(1) v. M/S.ALPHA DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD