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. 61 OF 2014 BETWEEN 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(4), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI DILIP, ADV. FOR SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD., NO.26/3, 26/4, 26/6 BUILDING 48, 4TH FLOOR, ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560100. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI T SURYANARAYAN, ADV.) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:20/09/2013 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1355/BANG/2012, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 PRAYING TO: 1. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. 2. ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDER PASSED BY ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1355/BANG/2012 DATED:20/09/2013 CONFIRMING ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM ORDER PASSED BY ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE. THIS I.T.A 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. This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act , for short) has been filed by revenue which was admitted by Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.02.2015 on following substantial questions of law: 3 a) Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that Assessing Officer has taken one possible view and hence order u/s. 263 of Act made by Commissioner of Income Tax is incorrect, when order made by Assessing Officer was contrary to provisions of Act and same was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue? b) Whether Tribunal committed error in taking into consideration that Assessing Officer has to conclude assessment as per provisions of Act and any conclusion contrary to provisions and intend of Act amounts to erroneous finding and prejudicial to interest of revenue? c) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, tribunal was correct in setting aside order passed by assessing officer giving effect to direction issued by Commissioner under section 263 of Act on ground that order under section 263 of Act has been set aside, without taking into consideration 4 that same has not reached finality and same is pending in appeal before this Hon ble Court? 3. When matter was taken up today, learned counsel for parties jointly submitted that substantial questions of law involved in this appeal have been answered against revenue by Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-III Vs. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. [(2018) 93 TAXMANN.COM 33 (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, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV Commissioner of Income-tax Bangalore / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore v. Infosys BPO Ltd