Central-Iii v. Hcl Technologies Ltd.’ [(2018) 93 Taxmann.com 33 (Sc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF JUNE 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO. 354 OF 2012 BETWEEN 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE 2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(4) CIRCLE-11(4) C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI DILIP, ADV. FOR SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD., PLOT NOS. 26/3, 26/4 & 26/6 HOSUR ROAD, ELECTRONICS CITY, BANGALORE-560100. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 25/05/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.222/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.222/BANG/2011 DATED 25/05/2012 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.Dilip, learned counsel for K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer has taken one possible view and hence the order u/s. 263 of the Act made by the Commissioner of Income Tax is incorrect, when the order made by the Assessing Officer was contrary to the provisions of the Act and the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? b) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in taking into consideration that the Assessing Officer has to conclude the assessment as per the provisions of the Act and any conclusion contrary to the provisions and intend of the Act amounts to erroneous finding and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal have been answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-III Vs. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.’ [(2018) 93 TAXMANN.COM 33 (SC)]. 4. 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. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE RV