At The Outset, Ms.tanmayee Rajkumar Submits That Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Covered By The Decision Of This Court In The Commissioner Of Income Tax And An v. M/S. Quest Global Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.,[2] Holding The Question Of Law In Assessee’s Favour

Digitally signed byYASHODHA NLocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1.THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIT(A), CENTRAL CIRCLE C.R. BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) C.R. BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 …APPELLANTS (BY SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) AND: M/S. PUNE DYNASTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD1 FLOOR, EMBASSY POINT 150, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 PAN: AAECP 1340D …RESPONDENT (BY MS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 26.12.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO. 3260/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.3260/BANG/2018 DATED 26.12.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 ANNEXURE-C CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned advocate accepts notice for the respondent. 2. This appeal by the Revenue challenging the order dated 26.12.2019 in ITA No.3260/BANG/2018 passed by the ITAT[1], "C" Bench, Bangalore, has been admitted to consider the following question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law setting aside the disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act/Rules without appreciating that conditions set out in said section as well as in 1 Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench Circular No.5 of 2014 are fully attracted in the facts of the present case to make such disallowance? 3. Heard Shri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants-Revenue and Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned Advocate for the respondent-Assessee. 4. At the outset, Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar submits that issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. M/s. Quest Global Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.,[2] holding the question of law in assessee’s favour. 5. The said submission is not disputed by Shri Aravind, in his usual fairness. 6. In view of the above, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed; (ii) The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar is permitted to file vakalath for the respondent in four weeks. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66