Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Yokogawa Indialimited} Reported In(2012) 204 Taxman 305 (Kar}Jafter

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATEBD THIS THE 0 DAY OF JULY, 2014. PRESENT: THR HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE N.KUMAR. AND THR HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICHK B.MANOHAR Income;Tax Appeal No : 1037 of 2008 BETWEEN 1.The Commissioner ot Income Tax. C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Circle — 11(2), C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. .Appellants (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) AND: M/s. GE India Technology Centre P.Ltd.,John F. Welch Technology Centre,Export Promotion Industrial Park,Phase-2, Hoodi Village, Whitefield,Bangalore — 560 O66. ..Respondent (Bys Sri Suman K.Suresh, Adv. For M/s.Universal Legal) PITA 1037/2008 This ITA filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arisingout of order dated 09.05.2008 passed in ITA No.869/BNG/2007,for the Assessment year 2003-2004, praying to (i) formulate thesubstantial questions of law stated therein; (ii) allow the appealand set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITANo.869/BNG/2007, dated 09.05.2008 confirm the orders of theAppellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the)Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 11(2),.Bangalore. This ITA coming on for hearing this day,N. KUMAR Jdelivered the following: JU DBiGMENT This appeal is preferred by the revenue against.the order passed by the Tribunal which has held that|the assessee would be entitled to set off against the|losses sustained in Section 10A of the Income Tax Act|(for short ‘the Act?) by setting off the interest income|and rental income by invoking Sections 7O and 71 of|the Act. | 2 |The very same question was the subjectmatter of decision of this Court in the case of. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. YOKOGAWA INDIALIMITED} reported in(2012) 204 Taxman 305 (Kar}jAfter 3ITA 1037/2008 elaborate discussion, this Court has answered the said|question in favour of the assessee and against the|revenue. It is submitted that the said judgment is now|Challenged before the Supreme Court and is pending|consideration. 3 oLearned counsel for the revenue submitted|that the judgment has no application and in fact the|said judgment is to be applied in favour of the revenue.|We do not find any substance in this submission. 4Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with|liberty to the revenue to seek for revival of this appeal|in the event the judgment of the Supreme Court is rendered in their favour. ah*. Sd/-|JUDGE Sd/-|JUDGE