The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Bangalore v. Infosys BPO Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0611-14]

Citation 2020-LL-0611-14
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Bangalore
Respondent Name Infosys BPO Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 11/06/2020
Assessment Year 2005-06
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags brought forward depreciation • prejudicial to the interest • erroneous and prejudicial • computing deduction • set off
Bot Summary: Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent. These appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been filed by the revenue which were admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 4 04.02.2013 in ITA No.280/2012 and 15.01.2013 in ITA No.279/2012 on the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act is not correct as the Assessing Officer has applied his mind while passing the order of assessment, without taking into consideration that the Assessing Officer has not set off the unabsorbed brought forward depreciation from total income for computing deduction u/s.10A of the Act b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in not taking into consideration that the non-set off of unabsorbed brought forward depreciation against the total income for computing deduction u/s.10A of the Act, was contrary to the provisions of section 10A and hence the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence invoking of section 263 was in accordance with law 5 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the substantial questions of law involved in these appeals have been answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. 77 TAXMANN.COM 41. In view of the aforesaid submission and in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.


1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.280 OF 2012 C/W I.T.A. NO.279 OF 2012 IN I.T.A. NO.280 OF 2012 BETWEEN 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, CIRCLE-1 C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI DILIP, ADV. FOR SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND M/S. INFOSYS BPO LTD., 26/3, 26/4 & 26/6 ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE-560100. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 16/03/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.1026/BANG/2009, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-2006, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDERS PASSED BY ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1026/BANG/2009 DATED 16/03/2012 AND CONFIRM ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE. IN I.T.A. NO.279 OF 2012 BETWEEN 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I CIRCLE-1, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI DILIP, ADV. FOR SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD., 26/3, 26/4 & 26/6 ELECTRONIC CITY HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560100. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) 3 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 16/03/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.698/BANG/2009, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDERS PASSED BY ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.698/BANG/2009 DATED 16/03/2012 AND CONFIRM ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMNG ORDER PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE. THESE APEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.Dilip, learned counsel for Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for revenue. Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for respondent. 2. These appeals under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act , for short) have been filed by revenue which were admitted by Bench of this Court vide order dated 4 04.02.2013 in ITA No.280/2012 and 15.01.2013 in ITA No.279/2012 on following substantial questions of law: a) Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that order passed u/s. 263 of Act is not correct as Assessing Officer has applied his mind while passing order of assessment, without taking into consideration that Assessing Officer has not set off unabsorbed brought forward depreciation from total income for computing deduction u/s.10A of Act? b) Whether Tribunal was correct in not taking into consideration that non-set off of unabsorbed brought forward depreciation against total income for computing deduction u/s.10A of Act, was contrary to provisions of section 10A and hence order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue and hence invoking of section 263 was in accordance with law? 5 3. When matter was taken up today, learned counsel for parties jointly submitted that substantial questions of law involved in these appeals have been answered against revenue by Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. [(2017) 77 TAXMANN.COM 41 (SC)]. 4. In view of aforesaid submission and in view of aforesaid enunciation of law, substantial questions of law are answered against revenue and in favour of assessee. In result, appeals are dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Bangalore v. Infosys BPO Ltd
Report Error